The Philippian Jailer versus Calvinism

[Hammster]

There has been law since the garden of Eden.

Physical death is a consequence of Adam sinning. A person dies as a consequence of the sin of a drunk driver, he does not inherit the sin of the drunk driver.

Sin, spiritual death, does not occur until there is a law and that law is transgressed. In the garden of Eden there was
1) a law not to eat of a specific tree.
2) that law was transgressed

THEN Adam and Eve sinned. Same is true for us today, one is not, cannot be a sinner unless/until one transgresses a law of God.

What law did those who died in flood transgress?

 

[trophy33]

Again, animals do not have free will, reasoning ability as men, they act on instinct, not created in the image of God.

If God predetermined that Pharaoh disobey, then God shared culpability in Pharaoh's sin nor could God rightly, justly condemn Pharaoh for the disobedience God made him commit.

Again, if you define free will in a meaning that we are not forced, then I agree it exists, in angels, us and animals. In every creature.

If you define free will in a meaning that our actions are unpredictable, because we will act regardless of our causation, then I do not agree it exists.

If you do not like the dog example, change it for an adulterer seeing a naked, willing married woman.

 

[TheSeabass]

Did you bring up the example of the eunuch? Yes you did.

Yes I did because the eunuch is an great example that disproves:
1) that one is "spirit baptized" therefore water baptism is not necessary
2) one must first be acted upon by the HS, be "regenerated" before one is able to understand God's word.

If both the above were true, then why didn't the HS just baptize the eunuch with a "spirit baptism" and miraculously regenerate him? Instead the Spirit sent for Phillip to preach and give understanding to the eunuch and water baptize. If Calvinism is true, then Phillip being there was totally, completely unnecessary.

Furthermore,
1) God is not a respecter of persons when it comes to salvation of me Acts 10:35; Rom 2:6-11
2) Jew and Gentile are saved in like manner Acts 15:11

This means Lydia's salvation would not be any different from the eunuch's salvation, the salvation of the jailer, the salvation of the Jews Acts 2, the salvation of Gentiles Acts 10 or other conversions in Acts. In ALL cases the gospel was preached to men (1 Corinthians 1:21) for God has chosen preaching to save men. Romans 10:17 faith comes by hearing. In all conversions therefore the gospel was preached men heard and developed faith in their heart and heeded what they heard. Not in any conversion is it said or even remotely suggested the HS had to first act upon people before they would be able to understand. If such were the case, then the HS would act upon and "regenerate" all men for God is not a respecter of persons.

I’ve repeatedly asked you to show, from the text, that the Holy Spirit did NOT work in the heart of the eunuch. It’s your claim. I haven’t claimed, from the text, that the Spirit did or did not work in the heart of the eunuch. So there’s nothing for me to prove. The burden is yours.

YOU make the affirmation the Holy Spirit DID act first upon the heart of the eunuch. Where does the context say as much? It is not up to me to disprove what is not even in the context.

 

[Hammster]

Yes I did because the eunuch is an great example that disproves:

2) one must first be acted upon by the HS, be "regenerated" before one is able to understand God's word.

You’ve made this claim, but not shown that the scripture supports this. You are assuming it into the text.

 

[Hammster]

YOU make the affirmation the Holy Spirit DID act first upon the heart of the eunuch.

When?

 

[TheSeabass]

What law did those who died in flood transgress?

Romans 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
Romans 5:13 "(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."
1 John 3:4 "....for sin is the transgression of the law."

If there was no law, then no one could be a wicked sinful person. If there was no law, then how did they know what was right and what was wrong, how could any distinction be made between who is righteous and who is unrighteous?

Again, Romans 5:13, Paul is writing about the time between Adam and Moses, and the fact sin was in the world until the law of Moses proves that law existed prior to the law of Moses. We know law (God's law, natural law, etc) existed from the garden of Eden.

Genesis 4:7 how could God warn Cain about sin if no law existed? 1 John 3:12 how could Cain's work be evil and Abel's righteous if no law existed to tell us what is right and what is wrong? For Paul says ".... I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" Romans 7:7.

If no law existed, then did Cain commit a sin in Genesis 4:8-13? How could murder be wrong if no law existed about murder? What was he punished for if no law existed?
Was theft a sin before the law of Moses, Genesis 30:33? How could adultery exist and be sinful if there was no law against it, Genesis 39:9?

Hebrews 11:4 "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

"By faith Abel offered...…. a more excellent sacrifice"
Romans 10:17 faith comes by hearing the word of God.

This must mean that Cain and Able heard the word of God, i.e., God's law concerning what would be an acceptable or unacceptable sacrifice.

So for sin to exist and for a person to be a sinner, there must be:
1) a law over and binding upon that person
2) that person must transgress that law

....eliminating the man made idea of original sin.

 

[TheSeabass]

Again, if you define free will in a meaning that we are not forced, then I agree it exists, in angels, us and animals. In every creature.

If you define free will in a meaning that our actions are unpredictable, because we will act regardless of our causation, then I do not agree it exists.

If you do not like the dog example, change it for an adulterer seeing a naked, willing married woman.

Free will is simply the ability to be able to choose between two or more options. If God predetermined a man to do "x" then free will does not exist for that man for he has no choice at all, much less a choice between 2 or more options. That man will do 'x" and do nothing but 'x" for he had no choice or say so in it at all.

 

[TheSeabass]

You’ve made this claim, but not shown that the scripture supports this. You are assuming it into the text.

Again, NOTHING in the context says the HS first miraculously acted upon the eunuch and "regenerated" him before Phillip preached to him. If you think the HS did first act upon the eunuch in this way before Phillip preached to him, then show me from the context where the HS did such.

If the HS is all one needs to be saved, then why did the Spirit send for Phillip, what purpose did Phillip serve?

 

[Neogaia777]

Free will is simply the ability to be able to choose between two or more options. If God predetermined a man to do "x" then free will does not exist for that man for he has no choice at all, much less a choice between 2 or more options. That man will do 'x" and do nothing but 'x" for he had no choice or say so in it at all.

We have the "illusion" of choice, that's all... It only "seems" we are actually choosing or making choices... And, from our perspective, we are, but not from God's perspective...

God Bless!

 

[TheSeabass]

When?

Do you believe or not that the HS must first act upon one "regenerating" that person before that person is willing and able to listen to and believe the gospel?

 

[TheSeabass]

We have the "illusion" of choice, that's all... It only "seems" we are actually choosing or making choices... And, from our perspective, we are, but not from God's perspective...

God Bless!

It's not an illusion, but real. There would be no need for God to ever 'repent' if he predetermined all things where man has no free will.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's not an illusion, but real. There would be no need for God to ever 'repent' if he predetermined all things where man has no free will.

If God had to "repent" then He was not omniscient...

God Bless!

 

[trophy33]

Free will is simply the ability to be able to choose between two or more options.

I would say that no, its not the definition of free will. Even machines choose between two or multiple options.

What makes it free is the fact that you are not forced to choose a specific option, that there is still at least a technical possibility you can go the other way. Even though somebody, who knows all your inner and outside motivations will know exactly which way you will choose.

If there are two doors, one leads to huge fire and the other leads to a calm and beautiful meadow, then its certain that you will take the one leading to life preserving conditions. Its certain, but not necessary, you technically can choose other option, but you do not want/will to.

If one of the doors were locked or somebody physically pushed you, then you are forced to only one of possibilities and therefore you have no free choosing and you are not responsible.

If you choose what you want to choose, you are free and responsible. But neither random nor unpredictable.

 

[Neogaia777]

If one of the doors were locked or somebody physically pushed you, then you are forced to only one of possibilities and therefore you have no free choosing.

And if that happened and omniscient God would already know if that was the case or not, what led up to it, and what you were going to about it, or IOW's choose, ect...

And if he already knows, how can you make a/the choice, or are you really truly making a choice...?

It's as I just said a minute ago:

We have the "illusion" of choice, that's all... It only "seems" we are actually choosing or making choices... And, from our perspective, we are, but not from God's perspective...

God Bless!

 

[trophy33]

And if that happened and omniscient God would already know if that was the case or not, what led up to it, and what you were going to about it, or IOW's choose, ect...

And if he already knows, how can you make a/the choice, or are you really truly making a choice...?

It's as I just said a minute ago:

We have the "illusion" of choice, that's all... It only "seems" we are actually choosing or making choices... And, from our perspective, we are, but not from God's perspective...

God Bless!

God's foreknowledge does not mean you do not make a choice. It "only" means that your choice is neither unpredictable nor random and is an unseparable part of the Universe you live in.

 

[Neogaia777]

God's foreknowledge does not mean you do not make a choice. It "only" means that your choice is neither unpredictable nor random and is an unseparable part of the Universe you live in.

If it's not unpredictable or random to God, then how can it be a real, true 100% free will choice on our part...?

God Bless!

 

[trophy33]

If it's not unpredictable or random to God, then how can it be a real, true 100% free will choice on our part...?

God Bless!

If you are forced to do what you do not want to do, than you are not free.

If you do what you want to do, then you are free and it does not matter that its certain. You are changing "free" for "random". Free will is not playing dice, it would be random will.

 

[Hammster]

Romans 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression."
Romans 5:13 "(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."
1 John 3:4 "....for sin is the transgression of the law."

If there was no law, then no one could be a wicked sinful person. If there was no law, then how did they know what was right and what was wrong, how could any distinction be made between who is righteous and who is unrighteous?

Again, Romans 5:13, Paul is writing about the time between Adam and Moses, and the fact sin was in the world until the law of Moses proves that law existed prior to the law of Moses. We know law (God's law, natural law, etc) existed from the garden of Eden.

Genesis 4:7 how could God warn Cain about sin if no law existed? 1 John 3:12 how could Cain's work be evil and Abel's righteous if no law existed to tell us what is right and what is wrong? For Paul says ".... I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" Romans 7:7.

If no law existed, then did Cain commit a sin in Genesis 4:8-13? How could murder be wrong if no law existed about murder? What was he punished for if no law existed?
Was theft a sin before the law of Moses, Genesis 30:33? How could adultery exist and be sinful if there was no law against it, Genesis 39:9?

Hebrews 11:4 "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

"By faith Abel offered...…. a more excellent sacrifice"
Romans 10:17 faith comes by hearing the word of God.

This must mean that Cain and Able heard the word of God, i.e., God's law concerning what would be an acceptable or unacceptable sacrifice.

So for sin to exist and for a person to be a sinner, there must be:
1) a law over and binding upon that person
2) that person must transgress that law

....eliminating the man made idea of original sin.

I don’t see how that eliminates original sin. It actually proves it, since all but those whom God showed grace upon were destroyed.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you are forced to do what you do not want to do, than you are not free.

If you do what you want to do, then you are free and it does not matter that its certain. You are changing "free" for "random". Free will is not playing dice, it would be random will.

You are so contradicting yourself in so many ways, but, I'm going to just leave it alone and drop it, as it is just a matter of perspective anyway...

God Bless!

 

[Hammster]

Again, NOTHING in the context says the HS first miraculously acted upon the eunuch and "regenerated" him before Phillip preached to him. If you think the HS did first act upon the eunuch in this way before Phillip preached to him, then show me from the context where the HS did such.

If the HS is all one needs to be saved, then why did the Spirit send for Phillip, what purpose did Phillip serve?

You keep acting as if I’m using the eunuch to make an argument. I’m not. So stop pretending I am. You are the one using the story to prove a point. And I’m still waiting for you to show that the Spirit didn’t act miraculously on him, since you are using the text to make the claim.