Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Hoghead1]

Alright, Marvin, I respect that. I'm glad you clarified where you are coming from. I have been in the thick, and I mean the thick, of that battle. When I entered seminary, that was about the first time a significant number of women entered. Phew! You could cut the tension with a knife between the women and the conservatives who did not want them in the pulpit. One professor walked out over the matter. Students clustered together in cliques for safety, affair you might sit at the wrong lunch table and really get it. Tempers flew, etc. So I know this sort of thing can be very disconcerting. Also, I am aware that liberals are not always liberal in how these matters are handled. And conservatives are not always particularly Christian and charitable in what they do either. Believe me. I did my dissertation in process and I had a committee member who was a Calvinist who hated everything and anything about process, as it turned out. He used write me really nasty character-assassination memos telling me off. My advisor, however, rescued me and asked him to stand down, which he did. I still have his memos. War souvenirs. However, we should not let these tensions interfere with this forum. These are personal matters that are best addressed elsewhere. Now, I certainly do not expect that everyone here will agree with me. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone ever did. However, I do think all should hold with the rules of a solid theological discussion group, a primary one being to offer your opponent a solid e=rebuttal and not attack their character. There is far too much of the latter going on in these discussions. OK, you don't like process, well, don't just say it's all "garbage" and leave. That is nowhere near an appropriate response, as there is too much solid thought behind process for you to throw it off as "garbage" and that kind of negativity just puts me on the defensive anyway. Rather, you should check with me to see if you have a solid understanding of process and then raise what you feel are respectful, solid rational rebuttals.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Definitely! And because men are spiritually dead and at enmity with God they do not seek Him.

Many do not, and have no excuse, per Rom 1:20. However, Acts 17:25,26 indicate that God created mankind to seek Him. And Rom 10:2 indicates that unbelievers do seek Him: "For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge."

Paul is describing religious Israel; the Pharisees and Sadduccees, who weren't saved. To have a zeal for God is no different than to seek Him.

And Psa 9:10 says: "And those who know Your name will put their trust in You, For You, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek You."

I think this is only where we disagree, Ordo Salutis. The order of salvation. Those who WILL believe, not because they believed. We believe that God acts first with Predestination, Election, Calling, Regeneration and then men come in with Faith, Repentance and together by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, Perseverance and Glorification.

Definitely disagree. There are no verses that tell us that God chooses who will beleve, which is the foundation of Calvinist election. 1 Cor 1:21 says that God is pleased…to save those who believe. It does not say, "choose who will believe". God chooses to save those who believe.

And the cornerstone for Calvinist election, Eph 1:4, doesn't say what Calvinists think it says. The "us" in v.4 is defined in 1:19 - "those who believe in Him". Thus, 1:4 says that "God chose us believers…to be holy and blameless". In other verses, we read that believers have been called to be holy and blameless.

However, we are no longer governed (slaves) by our sinful nature, yet still susceptible to moments of weakness.

I believe Paul's warning in Romans 6:11-16 is that we believers choose who we will obey. In fact, believers do choose to be slaves of sin. Which is why Paul commanded the Ephesians (and all believers) to "no longer act like the Gentiles" in 4:17.

When you say that God regenerates those who believe, the assumption is that you believe God regenerates based on some past, current or future merit, including faith.

Nope. I never said anything about merit. That's your 'translation' of what I posted. I believe that at the exact moment a person believes, God regenerates them. There are verses that clearly indicate that they go together. Can't have one without the other.

Or, do you believe there is Scriptural evidence of having a regenerated unbeliever?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I agree that Scripture, especially the OT, presents a rather drastic picture of God as cruel and unloving and then someone who wouldn't hesitate to turn his back on us.

No, it doesn't present that picture of God. I'm sorry that you see it that way.

The OT presents God as strict with His chosen people. And He gave them plenty of warning of the consequences of disobedience. Deut 11, 30, Isa 1:18-20 are clear examples. If He didn't provide such clear warnings, your view might be correct. But the fact of all the warnings demonstrates His concern over them. Just as a loving father provides very strict warnings of discipline for disobedience, unlike the jerk father who spoils their kids rotten and lets them get away with anything and everything.

Here's an example of God's love towards Israel in spite of her constant rebellion against Him:

Jer 31:3 - The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.

Here's an example of God's love for Israel in the NT:

Matt 23:37 - “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Look, Freegrace2, this is a situation between Marvin and myself. We are adults. We are perfectly capable of handling matters. We do not need you to butt in and try and do some rescue work. However, since you have jumped in, the ball is in your court. You apparently do not agree with my liberal approach. OK, fine, Let's hear your rational rebuttal. No character assassination, no labeling it all just garbage, anything like that. Just a solid, rational argument will do. So let's her it.

That's what I've been doing.

And to clear things up, these forums are public. Anyone can chime in any time. If you want a personal conversation with Marv, there is a way to do it privately.

But when I read about things claimed that are not Biblical, I'll step in and challenge them. And correct them with Scripture.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Alright, Marvin, I respect that. I'm glad you clarified where you are coming from. I have been in the thick, and I mean the thick, of that battle. When I entered seminary, that was about the first time a significant number of women entered. Phew! You could cut the tension with a knife between the women and the conservatives who did not want them in the pulpit. One professor walked out over the matter. Students clustered together in cliques for safety, affair you might sit at the wrong lunch table and really get it. Tempers flew, etc. So I know this sort of thing can be very disconcerting. Also, I am aware that liberals are not always liberal in how these matters are handled. And conservatives are not always particularly Christian and charitable in what they do either. Believe me. I did my dissertation in process and I had a committee member who was a Calvinist who hated everything and anything about process, as it turned out. He used write me really nasty character-assassination memos telling me off. My advisor, however, rescued me and asked him to stand down, which he did. I still have his memos. War souvenirs. However, we should not let these tensions interfere with this forum. These are personal matters that are best addressed elsewhere. Now, I certainly do not expect that everyone here will agree with me. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone ever did. However, I do think all should hold with the rules of a solid theological discussion group, a primary one being to offer your opponent a solid e=rebuttal and not attack their character. There is far too much of the latter going on in these discussions. OK, you don't like process, well, don't just say it's all "garbage" and leave. That is nowhere near an appropriate response, as there is too much solid thought behind process for you to throw it off as "garbage" and that kind of negativity just puts me on the defensive anyway. Rather, you should check with me to see if you have a solid understanding of process and then raise what you feel are respectful, solid rational rebuttals.

I understand liberalism all too well.

The true saying goes - “Being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.”

Liberals just keep flowing downstream with the norms of the society around them and never return to a baseline conservative document or understanding to check and see if they have gone astray. Given what we know about the world we live in – things just keep heading to worse things and never the other way around.

I don’t like liberalism. But I understand it and I am willing to let them do whatever they want. If they are church members – I’m content to let them work things out at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I won’t be their judge.

That is – until they begin to teach or lead others in the church. That’s a different kettle of fish altogether. That includes on the internet as it did in the PCUSA

My problem with liberalism in the PCUSA was the blatant dishonesty of those liberals who influenced the direction the church was going all those years.

As elders we took an oath of office that said we would be guided by the scriptures AND the confessions of the church as well. The WCF was one of those confessions.

When an elder no longer believes those things and cannot in good conscience teach and be guided by them in any decisions they make – they owe it to honesty before God and the people to admit it openly and step away from leadership. That is true for pastors and it is also true for all elders.

But the Bible talks about those who would pretend to be sheep when all along they were wolves. That’s the way it was and is with the ones who led the PCUSA into the liberal situation it is in right now.

They loved the “position” and the “glory” of being called elder or pastor. But they didn’t have the integrity to resign their position when they no longer believed what they said they did. They held onto the positions of power and glory for the personal gain it gave them and all the while worked against the denomination from within to undermine what they had always believed and taught – and what they had sworn to uphold and teach.

I don’t have much patience with liars (as some here can tell you). I've been banned in this forum more than once for straight talk and the next time just may be the charm. I call em like I see em. I did that as a teaching elder in the church and I do it now.

When I found that an elder or pastor would not be guided by what they said they would when they took their oath of office – I asked for their resignation forth with. You can imagine how that went over with the old entrenched elders who loved the praises of men more than honesty before God and the people.

Anyway – so long as you are not or have not been an elder and arrived at these positions of yours – I have no problem. But if you were one of the wolfish elders who contributed to the downfall of the denomination through their dishonest lies - I have a big problem with you and those like you. I always will.

One doesn’t stop having the heart of an elder and teacher just because he leaves a particular denomination.

The denomination went the way of liberalism. So be it.

But whoa to those who took it there while operating from their glorious positions with the dishonesty it took to hold those positions.

My two cents worth anyway.

 

[Cush]

Liberals just keep flowing downstream with the norms of the society around them and never return to a baseline conservative document or understanding to check and see if they have gone astray. Given what we know about the world we live in – things just keep heading to worse things and never the other way around.

I believe this is because of the very nature and definition of liberalism. Liberalism destroys any source text it touches, rather the Constitution or Bible. Liberal readers insert what they have in mind rather than receiving what the author had in mind.

One of the things the PCUSA had done in history was to discipline Reformers that kept their vow to the WCF.

Hope you don't mind me contacting you through PM Marvin.

God bless,
William

 

[Marvin Knox]

I believe this is because of the very nature and definition of liberalism. Liberalism destroys any source text it touches, rather the Constitution or Bible. Liberal readers insert what they have in mind rather than receiving what the author had in mind.

One of the things the PCUSA had done in history was to discipline Reformers that kept their vow to the WCF.

Hope you don't mind me contacting you through PM Marvin.

God bless,
William

Not at all.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Isaiah was giving God's policy regarding who He blesses and who He disciplines. We see the exact same thing in Deut 11 and 30.

You should run for politics, the way you avoided the question.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Oh, good grief. Jesus was clear about WHO hears and will live. The DEAD. He NEVER said that "His" will hear. He said DEAD.

MY sheep hear MY voice, is very direct.

 

[ToBeLoved]

FWIW, that's wrong on several accounts. We do not choose God (Faith). We are not capable as sinners of comprehending, let alone accepting, saving Faith. Second, it does appear, from Scripture, that it is indeed Faith and nothing of ourselves that merits God's favor.
.

Sounds like your saying we cannot have faith and then in the last sentence you say it is faith. Very confusing

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God created mankind with "free will" so that he is capable of exhibiting "true love" towards God. For "true love" is always by choice and is never forced. In fact, to illustrate this point, here is an example from a comic book story line about an almost God like entity or villain called the "Beyonder" letting a super heroine named "Dazzler" free from his powerful spell of forced love.




Secret Wars 2:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Wars_II

 

[EmSw]

To Cush: This is the third time I have written this to you. If you can't or do not want to answer these questions, maybe a fellow Calvinist can help you out.

God is sovereign in all things, and it does not depend upon any action by man. Just because man rejects God, it does not in any way, shape, or form diminish God's sovereignty one iota. If you say it does, then you give man power over God. So, does man have power over God when he freely chooses autonomously? Apparently you think so.

To whom are you answerable for the choices you make?
Did you not have autonomous freedom to come onto this forum?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to choose which religious affiliation to adhere?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to believe as you wish?
Who is demanding you to be a Calvinist, or did you freely choose yourself?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to write about any belief you choose to hold in your heart?
Please tell us, who is threatening you if you don't do things his/her way.
Do you pray to God in every action you take to see if acceptable with Him?

Please answer these questions to see if you are sovereign over God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

EmSw asked: ↑
To whom are you answerable for the choices you make?
Did you not have autonomous freedom to come onto this forum?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to choose which religious affiliation to adhere?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to believe as you wish?
Who is demanding you to be a Calvinist, or did you freely choose yourself?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to write about any belief you choose to hold in your heart?
Please tell us, who is threatening you if you don't do things his/her way.
Do you pray to God in every action you take to see if acceptable with Him?

To Cush: This is the third time I have written this to you. If you can't or do not want to answer these questions, maybe a fellow Calvinist can help you out.

He's probably still shaking his head about your lack of understanding concerning the so called autonomy of man.

No man is ever completely autonomous.

Man can only choose within the nature God has given to him or subjected him to.

Man can only make choices within the parameters of the circumstances the sovereign God has seen fit to place him in.

No one is sovereign over God. He is the only sovereign.

You can make all the choices you want to. But those choices are always subject to the wishes of God and never autonomous.

"Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil." James 4:13-16

The autonomy of man is a myth and is not scriptural.

 

[True Science]

Look, True Science, I checked out that site. All I found were nut cases arguing for a flat earth. Forget it. Also, I don't think it is really good form here for you and others to be posting material from other sites. I find that very distracting. I am here to talk to you, not look at some recommended site . If you feel you can "rock the liberal socks off me," let's hear your case.

Sir, we have had enough time to see your liberalism doesn't work. This equality that has come from the French Revolution has made our societies a mess. It is not Scriptural. Essentially you are saying that we need to evolve and get past Gods Word. Why can't we do that with the NT then? And isn't that what you people do? Now you ordain women as ministers. You accept homosexuals. And are anti-slavery entirely. This contradicts the New Testament itself which is opposite to all these things. It is a narcissistic world view. You guys think you are more righteous than God. You think you can do better than what his Law says. And apparently agrarian society cannot be successful without slaves. So what do we have now, corporate capitalism which is destroying us. That is what individualism does. How can a house against itself stand? A nation competing with itself isn't going to strengthen it. It will weaken it. The Scriptures do not teach capitalism either. Yeah the womans' rights movement is doing great for America, right? Sir, the whole anti-discrimination thing is un-Scriptural. The Scriptures discriminate all over the place. Your view is inconsistent because you discriminate between animals and children. Your whole views are just arbitrary according to the whims of how you feel in the situation. O yeah dietary laws are utterly barbaric, right? Now when we need them more than ever with all these food perversions like GMO. Yes, unlawful mixture is just o so barbaric. So now we have these abominations called food. We have people making cows that produce spider web from their teets instead of milk to mass produce bullet proof vests. And so much more. O it is so barbaric to let the land have a sabbath rest every seven years. No, it is better to be greedy and let the land be utterly deplete of its nutrients like we have happening today. Let's destroy the earth utterly. These people do that but then they go to global warming scam. They don't care about earth. That is why they suck it dry for oil.

Psa 19:7 The Law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of Jehovah is sure, making the simple wise.
Psa 19:8 The Precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart; the Commandments of Jehovah are pure, giving light to the eyes. (MKJV)

So David under the influence of the Holy Spirit utterly contradicts what you think about the Law.

Jer 6:16 So says Jehovah, Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths where the good way is, and walk in it, and you shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk in it. (MKJV)

same way Yeshua speaks about his yoke:

Mat 11:29 Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. (MKJV)

Scripture tells us to look to the old paths to walk in them if we want to be benefited.

Psa 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts. (KJV)

David under the influence of the Holy Spirit says God's Law gives liberty. So much for that perverted NT interpretation that the Law of God is bondage.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Jer 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. (KJV)

God tells us not to rely on our feelings and what we think is right in our own mind but to trust in him and have him direct his steps. This is opposite of you. You rely on your own heart and basically say God's word is barbaric and evil.

Rom_7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

The Law is holy, just, and good. Not barbaric, evil, and outdated those neanderthals of the past.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Well, according to you, all Scripture is not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. A lot of it is outdated and for a barbaric not yet evolved time. We've gotten past that now.

If you would look carefully you would see your liberalism is based on nothing but your feelings and desires and has no logical and Scriptural basis. It's totally arbitrary according to the whims of man tossed to and fro by his emotions and lusts, called progress, LOL.

I really wish you would take the time to study that guy's material because he says it better than me a lot of the time. And he has been dealing with these issues way longer than me and he horribly refutes and exposes this stuff you follow for what it really is.

 

[True Science]

I guess I'm unsure about what you say that I have said that is contradicted by Romans 1. Please show what I said or believe that did that.

You said in a previous post that God does not "coerce" anyone because coercion goes against His nature.

I said that there was nothing in scripture that tells us that always being against coercion is part of God's nature. I said that, in fact, the Bible was full of examples of God coercing people.

One hardly knows what angle to approach this from since it is so obviously true that God coerces and that it is not against His nature to do so.


"‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army..........." Ezekiel 38:3

If that's not coercion I don't know what is.


"Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Tell the sons of Israel to turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea. For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel, ‘They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has shut them in.’ Thus I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” And they did so." Exodus 14:1-4

If that's not coercion I don't know what is.

You were obviously wrong to say that it goes against God's nature to coerce people. I simply pointed that out to you.

We can let that go now if you wish. It's so obviously inaccurate to say that coercion goes against God's nature.

Perhaps you are saying that regeneration is coercion. It is not. People make a choice for God of their own wills out of a new nature. Creating new creations definitely doesn't go against God's nature.

Maybe it was the idea of predestination in general that you feel is coercion. It is not. Predestination and free will are totally compatible.

Obviously though - free will is an extremely important issue to you.

But again I ask - what exactly is it that I said or teach that contradicts Romans 1? Since you say that "everything" I say is contradicted by Romans 1, it should be easy to show me an example.

I'm in the dark here as to what exactly you mean brother. I'm asking you what you mean by everything I say.

Thanks!

I meant essentially everything. Romans 1 teaches by implication that man must have the ability to know who the true God is, what he requires of him, and to be able to do it, in order for man to be without excuse and guilty of God's divine judgment. This contradicts your position because you believe man is born guilty of Hell, born with a nature that makes it impossible for him to seek God and do his will, and most of man is predestined to never be enabled to do so. So are you seriously not going to go back and reconsider your position and just like to pay lip service to this text and just come up with some ad hoc fluff?

I apologize about my use of coercion. I looked in the dictionary. Poor choice of words. What I mean is God does not override man's free will against his will. He uses divine influence. Like these examples of God giving someone faith graciously:

Exo 4:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
Exo 4:5 That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.

Exo 19:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

Pharaoh is judicial hardening, sir. Pharaoh hardened his heart himself several times before God did. In this Pharaoh gave God justification to use Pharaoh as a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction to glorify his name in.

Your Ezekiel quote is using hyperbolic language which we often find in Scripture to show how compelling Satan's influence of Gog will be to get him to go up to battle against God and his people. Kingdoms are called beasts in Scripture and speaks of God putting hooks in this beasts jaws and dragging to where he may not go out of fear but not righteous fear and deep down he really hates God and his people and wants to go and do the evil thing if he believes he can succeed. Again we have justified judicial testing. The text says Gog will think an evil thought. Therefore God will test Gog by justly sending Satan (as we read in the Revelation parallel text) to tempt and deceive him because he thinks evil of God and his people. And Satan is very persuasive in his cunningness, hence the hooks in the jaws hyperbole. God knows Gog will give into Satan and fall through it and justly condemn himself and glorify God in himself. This will be the final purging of the earth to rid it of all occasions of stumbling. As it is written of the New Covenant:

Amo 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
Amo 9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.

Isa 30:28 And his breath, as an overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the people, causing them to err.

Eze 20:38 And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

Zec 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
Zec 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

[True Science]

EmSw asked: ↑
To whom are you answerable for the choices you make?
Did you not have autonomous freedom to come onto this forum?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to choose which religious affiliation to adhere?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to believe as you wish?
Who is demanding you to be a Calvinist, or did you freely choose yourself?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to write about any belief you choose to hold in your heart?
Please tell us, who is threatening you if you don't do things his/her way.
Do you pray to God in every action you take to see if acceptable with Him?


He's probably still shaking his head about your lack of understanding concerning the so called autonomy of man.

No man is ever completely autonomous.

Man can only choose within the nature God has given to him or subjected him to.

Man can only make choices within the parameters of the circumstances the sovereign God has seen fit to place him in.

No one is sovereign over God. He is the only sovereign.

You can make all the choices you want to. But those choices are always subject to the wishes of God and never autonomous.

"Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil." James 4:13-16

The autonomy of man is a myth and is not scriptural.

But the Scripture you cited is not a moral issue. All I say is man has ability to choose right from wrong and be either justified or be condemned without excuse. And if it is a baby who has not reached the age of accountability then it cannot be condemned without excuse. Same for an anomaly such as being born so retarded that you cannot even know what is going on. Such a person cannot be accountable to Judgment Day. I don't think that anyone is taking it as far as you are making it sound. All I am saying is that common man with the time allotted has enough God-given reason within to ponder on the creation and see that there is one true good, holy, and just God that he ought to worship, serve and love with all he has and not do that which is evil. If he is in sin, then whatever it is, he can then, example, turn from his idols, stop committing adultery, stop murdering, stop being greedy, etc. To say otherwise is totally contrary to Scripture, especially Romans 1.

 

[True Science]

Calvin, True Science, and other Reformers did say that a good tree brings forth good fruit. If you are saved, one of the elect, then your behavior should be on a higher standard than that of the reprobate. However, the Reformers still insisted that neither our works nor our faith merited our salvation.

In Calvinism you can't know people by their fruits because someone might not be elect and have good fruit and just a "hypocrite" as they call it.

 

[True Science]

The problem I have here, with this notion of original sin, is that if we are truly born evil though and through, why change? It's not right to go against your nature. So if we are by nature evil, then let's be evil and be happy, at one with ourselves and our nature. If we are born inclined by nature to follow Satan, then so bi it. Hell is our kind of people.

There is a Scriptural doctrine of Original Sin. But the mainstream "Christian" version is wrong. Romans 1 actually says sin is contrary to our nature. It is speaking about unregenerate pagans in that text. People have to understand that the Greek for "nature" can mean nature according to generation but also nature developed through long practiced habit. The latter is primarily what Ephesians speaks of when it says "were by nature the children of wrath." We know this because Romans 2 speaks about man having a good nature that does the things contained in the Law and convicts or excuses us of right and wrong.

At the physical level Original Sin is environment, inheritance, example left by our fathers, but it is also within us as what science has now found called 'epigenetics.' However science has shown that man's nature is essentially good. But it is damaged and needs to be restored in repentance and faith proven by fitting deeds as the Scripture attests. Check out this article if you are interested:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/original_sin_or_epigenetics.html

There also seems to be something similar in the metaphysical in the "air" as I'll term it here, according to the experiments of Rupert Sheldrake who has done tests such as teaching mice a trick and then going to another part of the world and teaching it to other mice unconnected with the previous ones and them learning the trick faster and easier. So maybe there is some spiritual connection that man shares with each other that influences another man in what another man is doing. And so if it can happen with learning good. It can probably happen with learning evil.

Of course as we have stated, this is not something commonly irreversible or that can cannot be overcome and changed. And if it was then man would not be accountable.

But as David's prayer of REPENTANCE (which involves turning back from your old wicked way: Acts 3:19; Luke 3:8-14) says:

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

And as YHWH says to Israel:

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your sins by which you have sinned; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 For I have no delight in the death of him who dies, says the Lord Jehovah. Therefore turn and live

This is the synergistic process of God and man working together to reverse and overcome the effects of the Original Sin corruption of this creation. Repentance and faith proven by fitting deeds. Psalm 51 was before the Lord even came in the flesh to complete the redemption with his shed blood.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

EmSw,

I'm glad that asked those questions because understanding the answer to the question of autonomy, or "free will" would take you ten steps closer to understanding why God must completely save a sinner, not simply offering him salvation. You can't understand what a Calvinist believes until you understand what Libertarian Free Will is, and what it is not.

How most Calvinists understand free will:

1. A person is not forced from the outside to make a choice.
2. A person is responsible for his choices.
3. A person is the active agent in making a choice.

What free will is not:

1. A person is free to do whatever he desires.
2. A person has the ability to choose contrary to his nature. (this is vital to understand)

 

[True Science]

EmSw,

I'm glad that asked those questions because understanding the answer to the question of autonomy, or "free will" would take you ten steps closer to understanding why God must completely save a sinner, not simply offering him salvation. You can't understand what a Calvinist believes until you understand what Libertarian Free Will is, and what it is not.

How most Calvinists understand free will:

1. A person is not forced from the outside to make a choice.
2. A person is responsible for his choices.
3. A person is the active agent in making a choice.

What free will is not:

1. A person is free to do whatever he desires.
2. A person has the ability to choose contrary to his nature. (this is vital to understand)

The problem is your understanding of man's nature is wrong from the start and also is not compatible with the scriptural teaching of God's justice.