HELL

[bling]

The question is not why does man's nature have to change in order for all mature adults after Adam to sin. The Bible explicitly says it has been corrupted, and bound by sin, at enmity with God. THUS we know that man is sinful in all he does, no matter how good or how well he chooses, until God raises him from that death of sinfulness, to life in Christ.

What verses are you using to show humans are born sinners?
I am not saying sinful man does something "good".

 

[bling]

Home-made doctrine. The Bible doesn't say so. Sophistry; based on human reasoning and not on scripture.

Man has to make a miraculous free will choice to have a Godly type Love.

 

[bling]

ARE YOU A UNIVERSALIST?

Most people reject the gift to the point of never being willing to accept the gift.

 

[Rescued One]

OK, but are we not to hate our families and Love them at the same time?

Prove thst ridiculous statement.

 

[Mark Quayle]

bling said:
Right, we do nothing to earn, deserve or be worthy of such a gift.
Rescued One said:
ARE YOU A UNIVERSALIST?

Most people reject the gift to the point of never being willing to accept the gift.

Don't you see your own implication? Why do some reject and some accept? Here you imply that they of themselves render themselves unable, (which assumes that up to some point they were able), to accept. Logically, then, they are not dead in their sins before that point, which implies that they are forgiven and in Christ —i.e. Universalism. To avoid the logical contradiction, YOU add the missing link, which is not in Scripture, that they have to "humbly accept" God's grace for it to be active. Granted, that was not the order of your logic. You begin with a restatement of that missing link, that: God would not hold anyone responsible for what they cannot do. You and I (and @Rescued One ) agree that they do it to themselves, and continue to reject him. What you don't agree on is that only by God's grace are they able to accept him. You utterly reject the doctrine of Total Depravity, worse than even the run-of-the-mill Arminian.

 

[Rescued One]

SIN NATURE

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Home-made doctrine. The Bible doesn't say so. Sophistry; based on human reasoning and not on scripture.

What kind of argument is it to mention that books have been written on it? So what? I've quit going to Christian bookstore because having to wade through the volume of drivel being written. Argumentum ad populum is no help.

Godly type Love is throughout scripture. It can be defined by everything Christ said and did, so there is not quick description.

non-answer. I'm not saying that Godly type Love is unscriptural. I'm saying that your construction is (and I didn't mention that it is not phrased that way in Scripture except in your construction of your version of the gospel. Furthermore, you haven't shown how the facts that books have been written on it is relevant.

Mark Quayle said:
Not even to produce—what was it?—"humble acceptance" worthy of grace nor activity of free will, worthy of grace. Salvation of those undeserving to whom God has chosen from the foundation of the world to show mercy, does not hinge on their decision, but on God's mercy. "...children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." John 1:13 sounds remarkably like Romans 9:16, doesn't it? "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

And no, your analysis in post 85 does not explain it away. In fact, in context, the facts within the things you bring up (the Jew-Gentile matter, and Paul's use of diatribe rhetoric) only reinforce this fact of Salvation entirely "by grace through faith, and that not of yourself..." (And, no, I didn't say your use of those facts, but just the facts.)

Again, accepting the charitable gift does not make a person worthy of the gift.

I'll grant you that! The reason is because it is not possible until God has enabled them to accept the charitable gift! Yet you magically bestow them with the ability to believe something well enough—and on their own—before God enables them. Miraculous indeed! But not evident in Scripture, but only in your reasoning. It is a bogus construction.

Mark Quayle said:
Which makes Paul's point that we have no ability to understand the things of God, apart from the Spirit of God in us. There is no such thing as an unbeliever that understands his need. He may feel need, but he doesn't understand it, and unless the Spirit of God regenerates him, he will not understand it. He cannot. He doesn't even know what he should be "accepting", until that work by the Spirit is already done in him. 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I am not saying sinful man understands, I am saying sinful man is selfish (sinful), so for purely sinful (selfish) reasons man can be willing (as you say understands his need) to accept pure undeserved charity as charity in hopes (trust/faith) his enemy (God) is charitable.

And I'm saying that is sophistry. You are attempting to thread the needle. You ARE implying that man understands his need well enough to know what he is selfishly accepting. I'm saying that he is clueless of anything except feeling and vagueness of a route to pursue, a name he's heard of, while in 1 Cor. 2:14 (I repeat, and you deny) it says, "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because spiritually they are discerned."

What you are proposing here has no relationship to the faith through which we are saved. You have man at the helm of his own salvation, and not God, by whose grace we are saved—not by the decision of man. (I repeat: Romans 9:16 "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."; John 1:3 "children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

You just HAVE to have man determining his own state and future, when Scripture shows that salvation is entirely by the Grace of God.

Mark Quayle said:
True that! But there is no implication that 'accepting it' causes the charity/forgiveness. Accepting in faith is not the cause of salvific faith. We believe because God has done it in us.

The charity (being forgiven by God is already there, but forgiveness does not take place until the person humbly accepts it.

...And there you have it. Is it not in forgiveness of sin that one is saved? Is that not part and parcel with the Grace of God? Why make up the part about it being the result of man's incapable, ignorant, selfish, illegitimate, foolish, petulant, rebellious, at-enmity decision? It is entirely by Grace. Faith is not this emotional leap of acceptance of an offer about which natural man is clueless. Faith is generated by the Spirit within us by regeneration, which is also part and parcel of the Grace of God. So is "Godly-type Love". So is repentance. So is desire for Christ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
The question is not why does man's nature have to change in order for all mature adults after Adam to sin. The Bible explicitly says it has been corrupted, and bound by sin, at enmity with God. THUS we know that man is sinful in all he does, no matter how good or how well he chooses, until God raises him from that death of sinfulness, to life in Christ.

What verses are you using to show humans are born sinners?
I am not saying sinful man does something "good".

How many verses do you need, to show humans are born sinners? To repeat: Ps. 51:5 says, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." and Romans 5:12, “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” If you need some more, do bit of a search. But you won't, because you don't want to be convinced of the inability of man to change himself. Romans 8:7,8 again, "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God."

Are we all born sinners? | GotQuestions.org

Are we all born sinners? Are we all sinful from the moment we are conceived? How is it fair for us to be infected with sin from birth?

www.gotquestions.org

Mark Quayle said:
Home-made doctrine. The Bible doesn't say so. Sophistry; based on human reasoning and not on scripture.

Man has to make a miraculous free will choice to have a Godly type Love.

So you have said, and so your home-made doctrine needs, to avoid incoherence. Yet you are without evidence of this "miraculous free will choice".

 

[Rescued One]

I won't be posting much now.. bling chooses to argue instead of learn and Mark is an outstanding teacher.
Lurkers will be greatly blessed by reading his responses to bling.

 

[bling]

Prove thst ridiculous statement.

Luke 14: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple
Yet we are to Love everyone.

 

[bling]

bling said:
Right, we do nothing to earn, deserve or be worthy of such a gift.
Rescued One said:
ARE YOU A UNIVERSALIST?

Don't you see your own implication? Why do some reject and some accept? Here you imply that they of themselves render themselves unable, (which assumes that up to some point they were able), to accept. Logically, then, they are not dead in their sins before that point, which implies that they are forgiven and in Christ —i.e. Universalism. To avoid the logical contradiction, YOU add the missing link, which is not in Scripture, that they have to "humbly accept" God's grace for it to be active. Granted, that was not the order of your logic. You begin with a restatement of that missing link, that: God would not hold anyone responsible for what they cannot do. You and I (and @Rescued One ) agree that they do it to themselves, and continue to reject him. What you don't agree on is that only by God's grace are they able to accept him. You utterly reject the doctrine of Total Depravity, worse than even the run-of-the-mill Arminian.

People do not make the choice to accept pure undeserved sacrificial charity, mainly because it is hard for anyone to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity from any giver making a huge sacrifice to provide that charity. They lack trust in God's Love to do such a thing and humility. Everyone prior to being eternal, has a selfish desire to continue to live, so eternal life has value for everyone. People just do not like to give up their pride (even if it is a false pride) to be humble, but everyone has the ability to be humble since everyone will either be humble now or later.
Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

 

[bling]

SIN NATURE

Romans 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

This is talking to adult Christians and not to newborn babies who cannot read.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is talking to adult Christians and not to newborn babies who cannot read.

Can you demonstrate this notion, that it is not about all who are In Christ?

 

[Mark Quayle]

People do not make the choice to accept pure undeserved sacrificial charity, mainly because it is hard for anyone to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity from any giver making a huge sacrifice to provide that charity. They lack trust in God's Love to do such a thing and humility. Everyone prior to being eternal, has a selfish desire to continue to live, so eternal life has value for everyone. People just do not like to give up their pride (even if it is a false pride) to be humble, but everyone has the ability to be humble since everyone will either be humble now or later.
Luke 14:11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

What I'm asking you is what is CAUSALLY toward the supposed humility, that makes one person more likely to humble themselves than another.

To the extent you have so far carried your assertion, it is random, who will and who won't. Why do some have that supposed trust and others don't. WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

 

[bling]

Can you demonstrate this notion, that it is not about all who are In Christ?

Babies do not have an "old self' since they have not sinned.

 

[bling]

What I'm asking you is what is CAUSALLY toward the supposed humility, that makes one person more likely to humble themselves than another.

To the extent you have so far carried your assertion, it is random, who will and who won't. Why do some have that supposed trust and others don't. WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

All have the potential, but this miraculous free will ability all mature adults have allows them to choose to humbly trust or not trust (direct their God given general "faith" toward God to become an accepting faith).
Mark, help me understand what you are wanting to show because it seems like you teaching: Humans are just going through some preset motions like in a movie with nothing of their own free will input. While, I see from scripture and life humans having an earthly objective for being here that allows them to become like God in that they obtain and grow Godly type Love. I do not see how any human could obtain Godly type Love without spending time here on earth and being able to make some limited free will choices.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All have the potential, but this miraculous free will ability all mature adults have allows them to choose to humbly trust or not trust (direct their God given general "faith" toward God to become an accepting faith).

Repeated assertion. Where is the proof.

Mark, help me understand what you are wanting to show because it seems like you teaching: Humans are just going through some preset motions like in a movie with nothing of their own free will input.

Help me understand how anyone can actually do anything, breathe, grow, die, exist, think, choose, obey... without being a result of precedent causes.

I really don't care how you want to frame the fact of choice —"free", in the creature, is scripturally and logically not free of precedent causes; thus the dictionary definition of "not constrained" does not prove that we have such a thing. "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will." is a self-defeating notion, in the created being. Even over my lifetime of 70 years I have watched the dictionary migrate from mere ability to choose, to ability to choose uncaused to do so and without constraint, and now 3 definitions of which "without constraint" is only one.

While, I see from scripture and life humans having an earthly objective for being here that allows them to become like God in that they obtain and grow Godly type Love.

Still, with the self-made constructions. Where in Scripture does it say that —"humans having an earthly objective for being here that allows them to become like God in that they obtain and grow Godly type Love."? (No, I don't mean where can you find that quote in the Bible. My argument doesn't need that cheap trick.)

I do not see how any human could obtain Godly type Love without spending time here on earth and being able to make some limited free will choices.

Self contradictory again. Free will, if free, is not limited. And I don't mean limited in that some things are not possible for man to do, I mean that in any thing man chooses (or does whether he chooses to or not), is it done entirely apart from precedent fact. In fact, the only thing that is observable and theoretical fact is that man has a will and can choose. There is no reason to call it free, unless one means free of some particular encumbrance, such as the sin nature.

Again, Man's choices are indeed real, with even eternal consequences. But since man is a creature, and God is the "inventor" of fact and reality, man's choices are established by God, or they don't even exist. It is logically self-contradictory, then, to say that God made man with miraculous 'first-cause' ability. Listen to what you are saying: Caused first cause. You may as well suppose God's first-causal ability was caused by something else that came before he did!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
What I'm asking you is what is CAUSALLY toward the supposed humility, that makes one person more likely to humble themselves than another.

To the extent you have so far carried your assertion, it is random, who will and who won't. Why do some have that supposed trust and others don't. WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

All have the potential, but this miraculous free will ability all mature adults have allows them to choose to humbly trust or not trust (direct their God given general "faith" toward God to become an accepting faith).

That doesn't answer the question. Supposing "all mature adults have this miraculous free will ability": How does it come to pass that one does choose, and another does not?

 

[bling]

Mark Quayle said:
What I'm asking you is what is CAUSALLY toward the supposed humility, that makes one person more likely to humble themselves than another.

To the extent you have so far carried your assertion, it is random, who will and who won't. Why do some have that supposed trust and others don't. WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

That doesn't answer the question. Supposing "all mature adults have this miraculous free will ability": How does it come to pass that one does choose, and another does not?

It is their "free will" choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark, help me understand what you are wanting to show because it seems like you teaching: Humans are just going through some preset motions like in a movie with nothing of their own free will input.

Help me understand how anyone can actually do anything, breathe, grow, die, exist, think, choose, obey... without being a result of precedent causes!

I really don't care how you want to frame the fact of choice —"free", in the creature, is scripturally and logically not free of precedent causes; thus the dictionary definition of "not constrained" does not prove that we have such a thing. "The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will." is a self-defeating notion, in the created being. Even over my lifetime of 70 years I have watched the dictionary migrate from mere ability to choose, to ability to choose uncaused to do so and without constraint, and now 3 definitions of which 'without constraint' is only one. #2 below is a good definition of how WE think of "free", and demonstrates the falsehood behind our use the word. All things but First Cause, Himself, are caused.

FREE WILL

noun​

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice.
   "chose to remain behind of my own free will."
2. The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.
3. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.

Also see: Free Will | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


I'm guessing that you are not quite incoherent. You, too, like the rest of us, depend all day on the cause-effect relationship, that things don't just happen all by themselves. Whether or not we sometimes think otherwise than that, because we don't have the smarts to know all the precedent causes does not mean there are none, or even that there are not sufficient to cause what happens. By the fact that we are creatures, and not first causes, means that we ARE indeed caused and what we choose is also caused. The logic is simple and unavoidable. If it wasn't for your insistence on certain unproven statements taken as axiomatic by way of their necessity (in your self-deterministic framework) —eg, "God is not to blame for my sin.", "It is unjust to command what we cannot do."— you would, as anybody would, admit that our choices are indeed caused by and according to our thinking and desires, and that our thinking and desires are caused by precedent causes. They do not render our choices invalid.

And this whole framework, all reality, all truth, is something that God intended to be and made to be. That we cannot know the mind of God does not render his determination of all fact inadequate to our personal responsibility to choose well. We do indeed choose according to our inclinations and preferences. Whether we prefer to sin, or prefer to love him, sinning or loving him is both caused by God and chosen by us.