What is freewill?

[Spiritual Jew]

Read Romans 9 again.

Ah, yes. Even though I've read it at least 100 times, if I just read it one more time, I will surely see it as you do, right?

But your notion that God would make people for the purpose of suffering in the LOF, is a strawman. That is not exactly 'his purpose for them';

Read what I said again. You misinterpret what I say almost as much as you misinterpret scripture. What you're saying here isn't what I said. I'm saying that Calvinism teaches that God creates and predestines people to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire on purpose. As in, not by accident. That is the destiny He wanted and planned for them, according to your doctrine.

Scripture says "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16). Does that line up with a god who would create billions of people with no opportunity at all for salvation and instead are destined for God's wrath and punishment in the lake of fire for eternity? No, it absolutely does not. Far from it. In Calvinism, God is love...and hate.

his purpose for those he has consigned to the LOF is given in Romans 9, but you have no doubt passed right over it every time it is told you. The fact they were created for the purpose of displaying his glory to the objects of his mercy is primary. The fact that they are predestined to hell is how the primary purpose is accomplished. It is you that describes a strawman, calling him a tyrant.

It does not say that they were created for that purpose. Again, Pharaoh was used as an example of what Paul was talking about. Where does it say that Pharaoh was created for the purpose of displaying God's glory as if God determined that for that person before the foundation of the world without ever offering that person a chance to repent before that? It doesn't. God didn't pick Pharaoh just randomly to display His power, He picked him because Pharaoh was evil and rejected God and mistreated His people by choice.

Second, and you probably have heard this too and paid it no attention, because it opposes self-determination — God is the center of all fact. Everything is about him and revolves around him. He made us and owns us and can rightly do to us as he chooses, without any hint of wrongdoing, as wrongdoing is always against him.

I agree with this. You thinking I would disagree with this shows that you don't understand what I believe. I don't sense that you're putting much effort into understanding what I believe, either.

But, the fact that God created everyone and everything and can do as He pleases does not mean He can do anything which violates His character. That's the problem I have with Calvinism. It has God doing things that contradict His character as described in scripture.

Sin we sin against each other is sin against him. Make no mistake —we haven't a clue what we are talking about when we say that God wouldn't do that!

Speak for yourself. Scripture tells us who God is. We can say that "God wouldn't do that!" in certain situations if those situations contradict His character that is described in scripture.

His commands and principles by which me must live are ALWAYS understood by us to be something short of his definition. We make a huge mistake when we put our understanding of them in judgement against him and pretending that he must live up to our definitions. We don't know what Love is, we don't know what Justice is, and we don't know what
Creator and Owner of the universe means.

We do know those things to some extent because scripture tells us. Why do you act as if everything is a mystery? God has revealed a great deal to us in His Word.

Maybe you see this backwards. Just saying. —Are you having a hard time admitting to the plain logic that demands that all existence is for GOD's sake and not ours?

Is there some reason why you are not addressing the points I made about the parable in Luke 18:9-14? Are you trying to avoid it? If the tax collector had free will and used it to choose to humble himself and confess to God that he is a sinner who can't save himself and is in need of God's mercy, does that mean he is honoring himself by doing so rather than honoring God? I certainly don't believe so. What are your thoughts on that?

Are you having a hard time admitting to the plain logic that the first cause caused all subsequent effects?

How can I admit that when I don't even know what you mean by that? Explain.

Are you having a hard time admitting to the plain logic that demands that any doctrine claiming that anything that happens that he did not in one way or another cause, is calling him less than Omnipotent?

Why would I admit something like that when it isn't true? That is not taught in scripture anywhere. I guarantee that. You think God causes rapes and murders and other horrible crimes? He punishes people for sinning and not repenting, but you think He causes them to do the things that make Him angry? You can't be serious. So, why would I admit to something you came up with on your own that isn't taught in scripture?

I'm not saying Calvinism is truth. I'm saying that self-determinism is false, not only the mindset of self-determinism is false, but the teachings that it produces are false.

Define self-determinism. It's impossible to respond to some of the things you're saying unless you define exactly what you're talking about. Stop with the Calvinist lingo and speak plainly.

And please, in your answers, don't try to claim that I, (or Calvinism), teaches that we do not choose.

Choose what, though? If we can choose things, why can't we choose whether or not to humble ourselves while acknowledging that we are sinners in need of a Savior while placing our faith and trust in Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was talking to "childeye 2" when I said that, not you.

Yes. Hope the dog's ears are OK! (Proverbs 26:17) If @childeye 2 objects to me butting in, I'll relent. But this is an open forum, and I saw something that I wanted to address.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
But your notion that God would make people for the purpose of suffering in the LOF, is a strawman. That is not exactly 'his purpose for them';

Read what I said again. You misinterpret what I say almost as much as you misinterpret scripture. What you're saying here isn't what I said. I'm saying that Calvinism teaches that God creates and predestines people to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire on purpose. As in, not by accident. That is the destiny He wanted and planned for them, according to your doctrine.

Here's what you said: "Your whole doctrine makes me laugh. It makes God out to be a tyrant who purposely predestines and creates people to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire." My point is that, and according to my doctrine, his purpose for predestining them and creating them is to use them for his glory, to show his power and justice and several other things, to the objects of his mercy (the redeemed), and that their ultimate end is part of that. Where I put the scare quotes was not quoting you, but to show the difference between what you claimed was tyrannical, and what the truth is.

Scripture says "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16). Does that line up with a god who would create billions of people with no opportunity at all for salvation and instead are destined for God's wrath and punishment in the lake of fire for eternity? No, it absolutely does not. Far from it. In Calvinism, God is love...and hate.

That is a weak argument. All you have is your concept of love to go by, and opinions to make about it. You shouldn't build doctrine on that.

And again, as I said the first time, they have their whole lives as an opportunity, but continually choose enmity. They themselves are in full participation with their sin. You really shouldn't pretend otherwise.

It does not say that they were created for that purpose. Again, Pharaoh was used as an example of what Paul was talking about. Where does it say that Pharaoh was created for the purpose of displaying God's glory as if God determined that for that person before the foundation of the world without ever offering that person a chance to repent before that? It doesn't. God didn't pick Pharaoh just randomly to display His power, He picked him because Pharaoh was evil and rejected God and mistreated His people by choice.

True that it does not say that there. (It does say elsewhere that he does make the wicked for the time of trouble, though. But I'm not using that for my argument). It is only logical extrapolation: God created them. God is omniscient. God has a purpose for each thing he created. God uses each person for God's own purposes. His purpose for some of them is described in Romans 9:22, 23; but I see I'm repeating myself.

Mark Quayle said:
Second, and you probably have heard this too and paid it no attention, because it opposes self-determination — God is the center of all fact. Everything is about him and revolves around him. He made us and owns us and can rightly do to us as he chooses, without any hint of wrongdoing, as wrongdoing is always against him.

I agree with this. You thinking I would disagree with this shows that you don't understand what I believe. I don't sense that you're putting much effort into understanding what I believe, either.

But, the fact that God created everyone and everything and can do as He pleases does not mean He can do anything which violates His character. That's the problem I have with Calvinism. It has God doing things that contradict His character as described in scripture.

You don't know what love is about. None of us do. —Do you call it love when God drowns a baby? The Old Testament is full of examples

Speak for yourself. Scripture tells us who God is. We can say that "God wouldn't do that!" in certain situations if those situations contradict His character that is described in scripture.

Let me paraphrase what you just said: "We can say that "God wouldn't do that!" in certain situations if those situations contradict [what we think is} His character [as] described in scripture."

Love isn't always nice to those who hate God.

We do know those things to some extent because scripture tells us. Why do you act as if everything is a mystery? God has revealed a great deal to us in His Word.

Yet he remains infinitely beyond us. Transcendent.

Is there some reason why you are not addressing the points I made about the parable in Luke 18:9-14? Are you trying to avoid it? If the tax collector had free will and used it to choose to humble himself and confess to God that he is a sinner who can't save himself and is in need of God's mercy, does that mean he is honoring himself by doing so rather than honoring God? I certainly don't believe so. What are your thoughts on that?

Yes, I didn't address them because they are irrelevant. Your argument is bogus. But ok, I'll play along. Why do you bring up free will in place of mere choice? But more to the point, what makes you think he humbled himself while at enmity with God? What makes you think God didn't cause that? I'll happily agree —even insist— that his choice was real. Our problem here isn't with the story, but with your notion that for choice to be real, it must be uncaused.

Mark Quayle said:
Are you having a hard time admitting to the plain logic that the first cause caused all subsequent effects?

How can I admit that when I don't even know what you mean by that? Explain.

"First Cause" is God, the "Uncaused Causer".
Before he created (caused) things that are not himself, there was nothing that was not himself.
Thus, he caused everything that is not himself.

Can you admit to that simple logic?

Why would I admit something like that when it isn't true? That is not taught in scripture anywhere. I guarantee that. You think God causes rapes and murders and other horrible crimes? He punishes people for sinning and not repenting, but you think He causes them to do the things that make Him angry? You can't be serious. So, why would I admit to something you came up with on your own that isn't taught in scripture?

Look at what he did to one of his instruments: Deuteronomy 32 shows his dealing with wayward Israel for their sin, by bringing an enemy against them (my highlighting).

Concerning Israel, he says:

23 “I will heap calamities on them
and spend my arrows against them.
24 I will send wasting famine against them,
consuming pestilence and deadly plague;
I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts,
the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.
25 In the street the sword will make them childless;
in their homes terror will reign.
The young men and young women will perish,
the infants and those with gray hair.

But then he avenges them for his own sake, because he won't let the enemy get away with the notion that they did what they did to Israel by their own strength.

26 I said I would scatter them
and erase their name from human memory,
27 but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy,
lest the adversary misunderstand
and say, ‘Our hand has triumphed;
the Lord has not done all this.’”

39“See now that I myself am he!
There is no god besides me.
I put to death and I bring to life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
and no one can deliver out of my hand.
40 I lift my hand to heaven and solemnly swear:
As surely as I live forever,
41 when I sharpen my flashing sword
and my hand grasps it in judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
and repay those who hate me.
42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
while my sword devours flesh:
the blood of the slain and the captives,
the heads of the enemy leaders.”

43 Rejoice, you nations, with his people,
for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
and make atonement for his land and people.



Do you need more?
Isaiah 10 (my underlining):

5 “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

12 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.

—And there are many other things he says along the same lines.

He even incited Satan to cause Job's suffering.

Mark Quayle said:
I'm not saying Calvinism is truth. I'm saying that self-determinism is false, not only the mindset of self-determinism is false, but the teachings that it produces are false.

Define self-determinism. It's impossible to respond to some of the things you're saying unless you define exactly what you're talking about. Stop with the Calvinist lingo and speak plainly.

It's not Calvinist lingo. 'Self-determinism' is a term I made up, as a catch-all for people who insist on spontaneous free will, that can operate independently of God's causation. It is a mindset I see in most believers, (and sadly, to some degree in all believers, including myself, that from time to time complain that God is not doing them right, as though they deserve better), that in spite of their protests to the contrary, see life only from that perspective, and try to wind God around their notions. The term is specifically mentioned as opposed to the notion of God's determining of all things, which is a concept I hold to, since it is entirely logical, and Biblical. Self-determinism is the mindset that sees life as being about us. It raises us to a logical level with God, or brings his down to our level, such as in, "If God causes us to sin, we are not to blame." and assumes that the command implies the ability to obey. It wants man to operate independently and measure up to what is right, as though that is God's purpose for mankind. It makes life about us, and assumes our words carry substance, instead of life being about God and our words at best child's prattle.

Mark Quayle said:
And please, in your answers, don't try to claim that I, (or Calvinism), teaches that we do not choose.

Choose what, though? If we can choose things, why can't we choose whether or not to humble ourselves while acknowledging that we are sinners in need of a Savior while placing our faith and trust in Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior?

We can choose to 'trisect the angle', but we are unable. We can choose to humble ourselves all day long, but unless it is God doing in us, "both to will and to do of his good pleasure", it is not humbling ourselves. We can choose to "accept Jesus into our heart" in a fit of emotion, but unless it is God doing it in us, we have accomplished nothing, as you, I expect, have seen the false starts of those who 'left us because they were not of us'. The unbeliever is not able to please God, because he has "the mind of flesh" (Romans 8), and is dead in his sins (Ephesians 2). We are unable to do anything toward or for God, but instead are at enmity with him, until he gives us life by the Spirit of God (regeneration).

Do you honestly think that any good thing comes spontaneously from within us? Or is every good and perfect gift from God?

 

[childeye 2]

I had said "what is the reason that He doesn't have mercy on some except that they choose to reject His offer of salvation (Titus 2:11)?". You said "God has his reasons". So, what are those reasons?

Spiritual Jew said:
This doesn't really address my question. Yes, God has mercy on whom He has mercy, but is that random or are there reasons for it? Scripture says He also wants to have mercy on all people, so what is the reason that He doesn't have mercy on some except that they choose to reject His offer of salvation (Titus 2:11)?

My understanding is that when God reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit, He doesn't want mankind to think their flesh and blood could choose to see and believe Matthew 16:17. So that we can be justified, He wants us to acknowledge that it is the remnant of the word of God we hear in our soul that agrees with the Word of God that comes in the flesh (The darkness does not comprehend the Light). Hence the revelation of righteousness that comes by grace through faith is perceived as a gift from God. Romans 1:17.

Matthew 13:12
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

The reason for that is ---> Man was formed from the earth. God is the Spirit that gives us the breath of Life and creates a living soul. God is showing that He is the Light in the soul of mankind; the goodness, the righteousness that wills to do what is right, in the soul.

There is a reason to prove that, (God has His reasons). The reason ---> When we don't esteem Him as our Light, nor are thankful because we think we're good or bad of our own choosing, we become vain, as in a carnal vanity, as in an impetus of the flesh. Therefore, in this state of carnal vanity God gave us (mankind) over to the impetus of the lusts of our hearts, and we became abominations. He did this to show we become abominations, apart from Him.

The results of which prove that the reprobate mind won't even care that it's an abomination in God's eyes, because an abomination approves of being and doing the abominable. ---> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

No, it does not say that. Why are you being so dishonest here? In Romans 1 Paul was talking about people who had lived before him and he said "THEY became vain in their imaginations" and "THEY became fools.".
Where do you see this as saying WE become vain in our imaginations and WE become fools?

I realize that Paul says "They" (mankind in the past). Given the subject matter, I think it's dishonest to count myself out, as if somehow, I wouldn't become an abomination if God gave me over to the lusts of my flesh.

Look at what else Paul wrote a little after that:

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Exactly. God shows His wrath against ungodliness and unrighteousness by having THEM receive in themselves the recompense of their error. I believe it shows that the error of not esteeming God as God, starts by being un-thankful for His Spirit and thinking it's me, the creature, that is righteous. That is vainglory which amounts to worshipping myself over the Creator, and these are the first steps of sin that lead to sinfulness and abomination.

Here is where I see Paul saying we're the same as "THEY/THEM". ---> Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Would you try to say that Paul was saying here that WE "exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones"? Of course not. So, what you're doing here is a case of changing what Paul wrote to suit your doctrine. You should never do that.

No, I'm saying Paul is teaching that WE would (future tense) become abominations IF God gave US over to sinfulness.

Did God plan for those demons/fallen angels to rebel against Him? Is that what He wanted to happen?

Concerning angels, I think God foreknew they, as creatures, would also take God's Light for granted. After all, the devil is called the Father of lies, and it makes sense that vanity would first manifest in the higher beings gifted with the greater bodies and intellects.

You're not addressing the reason why God would create anyone without any opportunity to be saved while being destined before the foundation of the world to have God's wrath come down on them and be cast into the lake of fire for eternity. For what reason would God do that to someone? You have yet to address that.

Romans 1 is about understanding the wrath of God so that we understand the purpose of the Gospel. God in His wrath gave mankind over to the lusts of the flesh. In the Gospel some people see God giving everyone the equal opportunity to become the children of God, when actually only those who receive Jesus have been given that opportunity.
John 1:12. For elsewhere in scripture, Jesus indicated he knew who would believe upon him and who could not (That's not to say they will never receive Jesus, because God can yet reveal Christ in them at a later time).

If you're understanding me here, I see the Gospel as reproving the prince of this world, casting out demons, etc... Therefore, I read your question as, ---> Why did God separate the Light from the darkness? So, I feel that I did address this when I said God created dirt vessels to dispose of the demonic waste.

Concerning receiving Christ, consider that these are the sentiments of demons: 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

How do you figure that God would need to predestine people to experience His wrath and punishment for eternity in order to prove what we turn into without His Spirit? That makes no sense.

I think God FOREKNEW the creature would take the Creator for granted in vainglory. I mean if I shine a flashlight under the midday sun, it's predictable that I will not appreciate the value of its light. But in the midst of darkness? In the dark I will be thankful to have a flashlight. Therefore, it makes sense that He would want to show His wrath so He in turn could show His mercy. God wants to be acknowledged for our sake, not just His.

That can easily be proven without such extreme measures being necessary. It's proven in people's lives all the time before they ever hear about God and about the gospel message.

The Image God sent, suffered being stripped naked, being mocked and scorned, beaten, scourged, and nailed to a cross to die in agony. He didn't complain about his lot in life, he didn't revile against the abominable actors who shamelessly placed upon him the ultimate shame. Instead, this Image of God sent by God, before the end of his suffering could be heard praying, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do".

What display of righteousness do you suppose can prove God's mercy better than that?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Mark Quayle said:
But your notion that God would make people for the purpose of suffering in the LOF, is a strawman. That is not exactly 'his purpose for them';

Here's what you said: "Your whole doctrine makes me laugh. It makes God out to be a tyrant who purposely predestines and creates people to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire." My point is that, and according to my doctrine, his purpose for predestining them and creating them is to use them for his glory, to show his power and justice and several other things, to the objects of his mercy (the redeemed), and that their ultimate end is part of that. Where I put the scare quotes was not quoting you, but to show the difference between what you claimed was tyrannical, and what the truth is.

I can't make any sense of why He would predestine anyone for that purpose and you certainly didn't clear that up with your response. That's what I want you to address specifically. Could He not accomplish the same purpose you described by taking people who have chosen to be wicked (rather than Him predestining them to be wicked) and using them for that purpose? Like Pharaoah, for instance? I would certainly think so (and I believe so). Why the need to predestine them for that purpose? That's my real question which I guess I didn't make clear originally.

That is a weak argument. All you have is your concept of love to go by, and opinions to make about it. You shouldn't build doctrine on that.

It's weak for you to suggest that I can't have enough of a concept of love to understand God's love. It's described for us in scripture. It is so great a love that He was willing to come to the earth as a man to suffer for us and shed His blood for "the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2). Why do you think I can't have any understanding of that kind of love? I can understand what it says about God that He was willing to do that. Why would you act like that can't be understood?

And again, as I said the first time, they have their whole lives as an opportunity, but continually choose enmity. They themselves are in full participation with their sin. You really shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Define "opportunity". To me, if they had the opportunity to be saved that means they had a legitimate and sincere chance to be saved. It was truly possible. But, that is not the case for your doctrine because you believe God predestined them to hell without giving them any choice in the matter and therefore no opportunity to be saved.

True that it does not say that there. (It does say elsewhere that he does make the wicked for the time of trouble, though. But I'm not using that for my argument). It is only logical extrapolation: God created them. God is omniscient. God has a purpose for each thing he created. God uses each person for God's own purposes. His purpose for some of them is described in Romans 9:22, 23; but I see I'm repeating myself.

Mark Quayle said:
Second, and you probably have heard this too and paid it no attention, because it opposes self-determination — God is the center of all fact. Everything is about him and revolves around him. He made us and owns us and can rightly do to us as he chooses, without any hint of wrongdoing, as wrongdoing is always against him.

You don't know what love is about. None of us do.

Why do you say this when sciripture describes God's love repeatedly? I don't get it.

—Do you call it love when God drowns a baby? The Old Testament is full of examples

If He then gives that baby eternal life, sure. Which I believe is the case. You are talking only about something temporal. Surely, babies can't sin and hell is a place where unrepentant sinners are sent to. Scripture never says that babies are condemned. Scripture says that people are condemned for refusing to believe (John 3:18), which is obviously not something babies can do.

Let me paraphrase what you just said: "We can say that "God wouldn't do that!" in certain situations if those situations contradict [what we think is} His character [as] described in scripture."

Love isn't always nice to those who hate God.

How exactly is God loving people who He predestines for eternal punishment? That's ridiculous.

Yes, I didn't address them because they are irrelevant. Your argument is bogus.

Ridiculous. It is very relevant. It's just an argument you probably haven't seen before, so you just immediately brush it off.

But ok, I'll play along. Why do you bring up free will in place of mere choice? But more to the point, what makes you think he humbled himself while at enmity with God? What makes you think God didn't cause that? I'll happily agree —even insist— that his choice was real. Our problem here isn't with the story, but with your notion that for choice to be real, it must be uncaused.

Are you purposely trying to avoid addressing my point? You are changing the subject here. What I'm asking you is if the tax collector in that parable (Luke 18:9-14) had free will and made the choice to humble himself and acknowledge that he is a sinner who can't save himself, is he giving himself glory by doing so? Yes or no? Because your contention is that if the will of man is involved in salvation, then man can take credit for his own salvation. I'm showing you that is not the case. But, you say this argument is irrelevant? No way! It's very relevant.

Imagine someone choosing to do something dumb by jumping off a boat into the water as it approaches the shore and saying they will just swim the rest of the way to the shore. But, then an undercurrent starts pulling them under and then are then in danger of drowning. At first, they think they can overcome this so they foolishly keep trying to swim for shore even though in reality there's no way they can make it without drowning first. Then, let's say someone on the boat throws a floating ring attached to a rope out to the person who is struggling to stay above the water. The person then has to decide if they will humble themselves and accept the help or pridefully keep trying to swim to shore themselves while saying "Thanks, but no thanks.". But, then, realizing they are not making any progress towards the shore, they decide to take hold of the life ring and are pulled back to safety in the boat.

Did the drowning person save themselves in this scenario? Can they take credit for saving themselves? No, right? The person on the boat saved them and they deserve all the credit for saving that person. This is how I see it with salvation. God did all the work to save people. There's no work we can do to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-10). But, we can humble ourselves and acknowledge that to God and accept His offer of salvation (Titus 2:11). Doing so by choice does not mean we can take credit for our salvation. We merely accepted God's offer in this case. So, when Calvinists try to say that people like me try to say that man can take credit for his own salvation and earn his own salvation, that is simply not true. It's a straw man argument. It's only an argument that can be made against those who claim that we are saved by works.

It's not Calvinist lingo. 'Self-determinism' is a term I made up, as a catch-all for people who insist on spontaneous free will, that can operate independently of God's causation. It is a mindset I see in most believers, (and sadly, to some degree in all believers, including myself, that from time to time complain that God is not doing them right, as though they deserve better), that in spite of their protests to the contrary, see life only from that perspective, and try to wind God around their notions. The term is specifically mentioned as opposed to the notion of God's determining of all things, which is a concept I hold to, since it is entirely logical, and Biblical.

I completely disagree. God does not determine the things that He punishes people for. You do believe that He punishes people, right? That would be like Him admitting that He made a mistake when those people do those things, which is ridiculous. No, He punishes people for rebelling against Him by not doing what He wanted them to do. If He determined all things, then that would mean everything that happens is what He wanted to happen, which is clearly not the case. If it was then there would be no such thing as rebellion and no such thing as God's wrath, yet we see those things described in scripture many times.

Self-determinism is the mindset that sees life as being about us. It raises us to a logical level with God, or brings his down to our level, such as in, "If God causes us to sin, we are not to blame." and assumes that the command implies the ability to obey. It wants man to operate independently and measure up to what is right, as though that is God's purpose for mankind. It makes life about us, and assumes our words carry substance, instead of life being about God and our words at best child's prattle.

Your belief is that we are basically robots or puppets that God does with as He pleases while not making us responsible for anything (How can we be responsible for anything if God determines everything? Impossible). You ignore the fact that human beings have a soul and a will and are able to use reason and have a God-given conscience that He expects us to use to make the right decisions.

Mark Quayle said:
And please, in your answers, don't try to claim that I, (or Calvinism), teaches that we do not choose.

We can choose to 'trisect the angle', but we are unable. We can choose to humble ourselves all day long, but unless it is God doing in us, "both to will and to do of his good pleasure", it is not humbling ourselves. We can choose to "accept Jesus into our heart" in a fit of emotion, but unless it is God doing it in us, we have accomplished nothing, as you, I expect, have seen the false starts of those who 'left us because they were not of us'. The unbeliever is not able to please God, because he has "the mind of flesh" (Romans 8), and is dead in his sins (Ephesians 2). We are unable to do anything toward or for God, but instead are at enmity with him, until he gives us life by the Spirit of God (regeneration).

You are only looking at a small picture rather than the big picture. And you are making assumptions about what being dead in sins means. It it not meant to be compared directly to being physically dead and unconscious, as I believe you probably do. It simply refers to people being separated from God because of sin and has nothing to do with what someone is or is not capable of doing. Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32). Sinners who are dead in their sins. Nowhere does He indicate that sinners need to be regenerated first before answering His call to repentance.

Do you honestly think that any good thing comes spontaneously from within us? Or is every good and perfect gift from God?

To answer your first question: No, I don't. Instead, I believe we need to humble ourselves and admit to God that we are not good and are sinners in need of His mercy just like the tax collector in the parable in Luke 18:9-14.

To answer your second question: Yes.

These are questions you should ask someone who thinks we can be saved by our own righteousness and good works. I don't believe that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Spiritual Jew said:
This doesn't really address my question. Yes, God has mercy on whom He has mercy, but is that random or are there reasons for it? Scripture says He also wants to have mercy on all people, so what is the reason that He doesn't have mercy on some except that they choose to reject His offer of salvation (Titus 2:11)?

My understanding is that when God reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit, He doesn't want mankind to think their flesh and blood could choose to see and believe Matthew 16:17. So that we can be justified, He wants us to acknowledge that it is the remnant of the word of God we hear in our soul that agrees with the Word of God that comes in the flesh (The darkness does not comprehend the Light). Hence the revelation of righteousness that comes by grace through faith is perceived as a gift from God. Romans 1:17.

Matthew 13:12
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

The reason for that is ---> Man was formed from the earth. God is the Spirit that gives us the breath of Life and creates a living soul. God is showing that He is the Light in the soul of mankind; the goodness, the righteousness that wills to do what is right, in the soul.

There is a reason to prove that, (God has His reasons). The reason ---> When we don't esteem Him as our Light, nor are thankful because we think we're good or bad of our own choosing, we become vain, as in a carnal vanity, as in an impetus of the flesh. Therefore, in this state of carnal vanity God gave us (mankind) over to the impetus of the lusts of our hearts, and we became abominations. He did this to show we become abominations, apart from Him.

No offense, but you are hard to follow. I see you talking about people not being thankful to God and becoming vain like what Paul talks about in Romans 1. Isn't that a choice that people make rather than having no choice but to be that way? To become something implies that you were not that way before you became that way.

The results of which prove that the reprobate mind won't even care that it's an abomination in God's eyes, because an abomination approves of being and doing the abominable. ---> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I realize that Paul says "They" (mankind in the past). Given the subject matter, I think it's dishonest to count myself out, as if somehow, I wouldn't become an abomination if God gave me over to the lusts of my flesh.

I dont understand your point of view at all. Keeping in mind that we're talking about Romans 1 here, does this mean you think you'd become a homosexual if God left you to make your own choices (Romans 1:26-27)?

No, I'm saying Paul is teaching that WE would (future tense) become abominations IF God gave US over to sinfulness.

Before asking the question above, I forgot that I had already asked a similar question. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I would not become a homosexual if God gave me over to my sinfulness. Clearly, people choose to be homosexuals. They choose to become vain in their imaginations. They choose to become fools who aren't thankful to God and don't glorify God. So, I disagree with you about this. God only gives people over to their sinfulness after that is what they have chosen for themselves.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

This passage supports what I'm saying. It shows that people first choose their own ways and then God chooses their delusions in response. But, not after giving them a chance to repent first. He commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). But, if people repeatedly refuse to repent, He can choose to give them over to their sinfulness. Like we see here as well:

2 Thessalonians 2:10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

People are not predestined to hell. God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11). So, the reason that people go to hell is because they choose to refuse "to love the truth and so be saved". There's nothing in scripture which teaches that those people couldn't help but to refuse to love and accept the truth. That is their choice which is why God holds them responsible for that and punishes them. If everything was up to God's choice alone, why would they be punished for eternity? That makes no sense.

Romans 1 is about understanding the wrath of God so that we understand the purpose of the Gospel. God in His wrath gave mankind over to the lusts of the flesh. In the Gospel some people see God giving everyone the equal opportunity to become the children of God, when actually only those who receive Jesus have been given that opportunity.

Why do you believe that in light of scripture like this:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Is the offer of salvation that God graciously gives to all people not a legitimate and sincere offer for all people? Do you think it is actually only an offer for some people, which would contradict what Paul said?

 

[childeye 2]

No offense, but you are hard to follow. I see you talking about people not being thankful to God and becoming vain like what Paul talks about in Romans 1.

Yes, vain as in serving vanity and vainglory.

Isn't that a choice that people make rather than having no choice but to be that way? To become something implies that you were not that way before you became that way.

I agree that to become vain infers that they were not that way before, or at least in this particular manner. However, I do not think the creature decided to become foolish or vain. I think we foolishly imagined that we were righteous and wise of our own selves in an Un thankfulness to God, and became vain. I also believe God foreknew we would be corruptible and subject to vanity.

Romans 8:20​

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,​

I dont understand your point of view at all. Keeping in mind that we're talking about Romans 1 here, does this mean you think you'd become a homosexual if God left you to make your own choices (Romans 1:26-27)?

I would think that IF God gave me up to uncleanness, like Paul describes in Romans 1:24, then I would become subject to my own carnal lust. If God gave me up to vile affections like Paul describes in Romans 1:26, I could then become homosexual. If God gave me up to a reprobate mind like Paul describes in Romans 1:28 , I don't believe I could choose to not have a reprobate mind. Having said that, I believe we became fools when we imagined we were wise or righteous of ourselves.

Before asking the question above, I forgot that I had already asked a similar question. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I would not become a homosexual if God gave me over to my sinfulness. Clearly, people choose to be homosexuals.

You need to rethink this above. As I see it, I am a heterosexual male and that is a normal affection bestowed by God. Therefore, I cannot choose to desire a male, it's not even an option. When you say "clearly people choose to be homosexual", it's implying that any person could choose to be aroused by the same sex according to our ability to reason.

They choose to become vain in their imaginations.

I think mankind becomes vain in our imaginations when we don't glorify God as God the Eternal power.

They choose to become fools who aren't thankful to God and don't glorify God. So, I disagree with you about this.

I don't believe anyone decides to be a fool. It seems to me only a fool would think they decide whether to be a fool or wise. Anyway, the scripture is clear, depicting that they were professing themselves to be wise which is how they became fools, so it's more like mankind took God's attributes for granted in vainglory.

Having said that, I don't count myself out, for scripture says, ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned EVERYONE to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. We've all sinned and were once children of wrath, and I think this is why we will all be judged by what measure we use to judge others; those who are forgiven much, love much etc...

God only gives people over to their sinfulness after that is what they have chosen for themselves.

I see it as Paul saying that the fall into sinfulness all began with not esteeming God, as God.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

This passage supports what I'm saying. It shows that people first choose their own ways and then God chooses their delusions in response.

I see this scripture as prophetic according to the foreknowledge of God. I believe it was fulfilled when Jesus was turned over to the Romans by the chief priests and the Pharisees out of fear of the Romans, and that their fear actually came true:

John 11:48​

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.​

4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

But, not after giving them a chance to repent first. He commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). But, if people repeatedly refuse to repent, He can choose to give them over to their sinfulness. Like we see here as well:
2 Thessalonians 2:10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

I don't deny that God calls all unto repentance. I am familiar with the KJV which reads: "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved". I read that as saying that because they would not receive the brotherly Love that is Truth, they became full of deceit.

Matthew 13:12
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

People are not predestined to hell. God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11). So, the reason that people go to hell is because they choose to refuse "to love the truth and so be saved". There's nothing in scripture which teaches that those people couldn't help but to refuse to love and accept the truth.

I think God foreknew that there would be those who would not receive His son.

John 3:18-20

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

That is their choice which is why God holds them responsible for that and punishes them. If everything was up to God's choice alone, why would they be punished for eternity? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me that God would have his angels separate the wheat from the tares.

Why do you believe that in light of scripture like this:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Because I don't see it contradicting what John 1 says here,
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Is the offer of salvation that God graciously gives to all people not a legitimate and sincere offer for all people? Do you think it is actually only an offer for some people, which would contradict what Paul said?

I think scripture indicates that some people will not receive Christ because they Love the darkness. That doesn't make the Gospel insincere. God knows what He is doing.
Peter 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree that to become vain infers that they were not that way before, or at least in this particular manner. However, I do not think the creature decided to become foolish or vain. I think we foolishly imagined that we were righteous and wise of our own selves in an Un thankfulness to God, and became vain. I also believe God foreknew we would be corruptible and subject to vanity.

Romans 8:20​

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,​

I would think that IF God gave me up to uncleanness, like Paul describes in Romans 1:24, then I would become subject to my own carnal lust. If God gave me up to vile affections like Paul describes in Romans 1:26, I could then become homosexual.

I completely disagree with everything you're saying here. There are plenty of sexually immoral people who are not homosexuals. It says that homosexuality is unnatural. But, what I see you saying here is that, apart from God's intervention, you could do what is unnatural? That makes no sense. No, it's natural to not be a homosexual. Being homosexual is a choice. You are acting as if one could naturally be a homosexual if God didn't purposely prevent it, but that is not at all what Paul indicated.

If God gave me up to a reprobate mind like Paul describes in Romans 1:28 , I don't believe I could choose to not have a reprobate mind. Having said that, I believe we became fools when we imagined we were wise or righteous of ourselves.

Again, you are saying "we" when what Paul said does not apply to everyone. Also, since people become fools and are not always fools (until they become fools) then that means you're saying people become fools at the point when they imagine they are wise or righteous of themselves. And you say that this is somehow not a choice that people make.

You're not addressing how people get to that point in the first place. If not by choice, then how? It can't be naturally because Paul applies the same context to people being homosexual. And he said that is unnatural. You're acting as having a reprobate mind is natural, but it is not. That is why Paul said people have no excuse for being that way (Romans 1:20). Your doctrine gives people an excuse for being that way because you try to say they are naturally that way, which would be a perfect excuse for someone being that way.

You need to rethink this above. As I see it, I am a heterosexual male and that is a normal affection bestowed by God. Therefore, I cannot choose to desire a male, it's not even an option. When you say "clearly people choose to be homosexual", it's implying that any person could choose to be aroused by the same sex according to our ability to reason.

Are you reading the text?

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This makes it very clear that homosexuality is unnatural, but you are coming across as saying it's natural for those who are homosexual to be that way. No, it is not. No one is born that way. So, how can you try to deny that being homosexual is a choice? Do you not accept what Paul wrote about it?

I think mankind becomes vain in our imaginations when we don't glorify God as God the Eternal power.

Is that not by choice? How could it not be? Clearly, people are not always vain in their imaginations or else it would not say they become that way.

I don't believe anyone decides to be a fool. It seems to me only a fool would think they decide whether to be a fool or wise. Anyway, the scripture is clear, depicting that they were professing themselves to be wise which is how they became fools, so it's more like mankind took God's attributes for granted in vainglory.

No one purposely decides to become a fool, but they purposely decide to profess themselves to be wise and become fools as a result. That's what I meant all along, just so you know.

Having said that, I don't count myself out, for scripture says, ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned EVERYONE to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. We've all sinned and were once children of wrath, and I think this is why we will all be judged by what measure we use to judge others; those who are forgiven much, love much etc...

Yes, we are obviously all sinners and that's why God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). We are not debating whether or not all people are sinners. The scripture you referenced and Romans 3:23 are very clear that we all are. No, we are debating whether it's a choice or not to refuse to repent and refuse to worship God even after coming to the realization that is what God expects all people to do. I believe that is clearly a choice all people need to make and there is no excuse if people choose not to repent of their sins and not to worship God. Paul very clearly said that some people know God and still don't repent of their sins and worship Him. The fact that there is no excuse for that clearly implies that it is not natural for them to do that, but rather it happens because they willingly choose not to do it. While others do choose to repent and worship God.

I think God foreknew that there would be those who would not receive His son.

Foreknowing, or knowing that ahead of time, is not the same as predetermining or predestining that to happen. You understand that, don't you?

I think scripture indicates that some people will not receive Christ because they Love the darkness. That doesn't make the Gospel insincere. God knows what He is doing.
Peter 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Why do they love the darkness? Because God made them that way? They had no other choice but to love the darkness? That seems to be what you believe, but that is not what scripture teaches. If that was the case, then they would have an excuse for that. How can someone be blamed for loving the darkness if they were made in such a way that they could only love the darkness? That would make no sense. But, scripture says they do not have an excuse for being that way (Romans 1:20) which implies that they use their God-given free will and conscience to choose to love the darkness rather than accepting and embracing the light of the gospel.

 

[childeye 2]

I completely disagree with everything you're saying here. There are plenty of sexually immoral people who are not homosexuals. It says that homosexuality is unnatural. But, what I see you saying here is that, apart from God's intervention, you could do what is unnatural? That makes no sense. No, it's natural to not be a homosexual. Being homosexual is a choice. You are acting as if one could naturally be a homosexual if God didn't purposely prevent it, but that is not at all what Paul indicated.

I think you're sort of misunderstanding what I mean to convey. I believe God's Spirit is the goodness in mankind. Since His Word is our Light, I'm left to wonder what would become of the character of my soul without His Word, and by extension, if I could even care about my character without His Word.

For example, in Romans 1 Scripture uses the term 'natural' to describe heterosexuality as the 'normal' God given affection in mankind. I have never thought, said, nor implied otherwise. Since God made mankind heterosexual, I therefore would not see Homosexuality as normal.

So, what I'm saying is that while I believe God is the goodness in mankind, I also know that there is a will of the flesh that lusts according to self-serving and even inordinate carnal desires, and that the flesh is not the source of godliness or righteousness. So that if God were to give a person up to 'uncleanness' in subservience to the lusts therein, then the mind would become carnal in some manner of degree and that person will also become sinful accordingly, including any sexual immorality within the confines of heterosexuality. Furthermore, if God gave up a person to a "vile" affection or a "reprobate" mind, then those terms are indicative of a further deviation from the norms including homosexuality. I believe this is the circumstance of every man born of Adam.

Again, you are saying "we" when what Paul said does not apply to everyone. Also, since people become fools and are not always fools (until they become fools) then that means you're saying people become fools at the point when they imagine they are wise or righteous of themselves. And you say that this is somehow not a choice that people make.

And again yes, I realize that Paul is speaking of mankind in the past as pertains to the fall into corruption, but that doesn't mean that Paul is implying that the same principle about taking God for granted in vanity doesn't apply to us. I believe that God keeps us Holy and that a corrupt image of god corrupts the soul. So, I think it's a fair articulation to say it's foolish and vain to imagine that the creature can improve upon their appointed station under God because they earned it or deserved it (see the serpent).

When we assert that to become a fool there is a 'choice' involved, to me it becomes incoherent because not only does it assert that a weighing of pros and cons occurred, but it also asserts that it's possible for people to decide for themselves whether to be wise or foolish. However, it makes perfect sense that imaginings form in the imagination and are therefore imaginary, so that if we were to imagine that we earned or deserved God's spiritual gifts and in doing so we self-aggrandize, then it's understandable that this would manifest pride, not sound reasoning.

I'm saying "we" because Paul indicates that God gave mankind up to the lust of their flesh as a lesson to all, because 'we' all have flesh and we all can become proud through the carnal mind. Here is where Paul is indicating that we are the same as them:
Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

You're not addressing how people get to that point in the first place.

Paul indicates it started when they did not glorify God as God even though they knew God:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

If not by choice, then how?

I think the creature gradually takes the attributes of God for granted and it eventually manifests into some form of pride or vainglory. I also believe that if there were a desire to from in the heart of the creature, a desire to be free from servitude to God, then that desire would be based upon a corrupt and vain image of God, conceived in ignorance/darkness. The term 'choice' doesn't adequately describe the circumstance of darkness/ignorance where such a false image of god could be imagined.

It can't be naturally because Paul applies the same context to people being homosexual. And he said that is unnatural. You're acting as having a reprobate mind is natural, but it is not. That is why Paul said people have no excuse for being that way (Romans 1:20). Your doctrine gives people an excuse for being that way because you try to say they are naturally that way, which would be a perfect excuse for someone being that way.

In regard to any assumption that I think a reprobate mind is natural, again I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't know where you're getting this idea that I believe terms like "uncleanness", "homosexuality" and "reprobate" are not terms descriptive of corruption and deviancies from the norm.

As for what I see Paul means to express with a term such as 'inexcusable', I don't believe Paul's description of God giving mankind over to uncleanness, vile affections, or a reprobate mind, is what Paul meant to convey. Because he describes these conditions of being unclean, vile, and reprobate, as a recompense for not esteeming God as God.

So, I interpret Paul as saying that since God is the Eternal Power and since the Word of God is the Light of mankind, and since God has shown this to us,
we are without excuse for not esteeming God as God.
we are without excuse for imagining that we are wise of our own selves,
we are without excuse for not being thankful to God.
and we are without excuse for worshipping the corruptible creature over the incorruptible Creator.
and we are without excuse for judging the sinfulness of others.

This is what Paul says:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Are you reading the text?

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This makes it very clear that homosexuality is unnatural, but you are coming across as saying it's natural for those who are homosexual to be that way. No, it is not. No one is born that way. So, how can you try to deny that being homosexual is a choice? Do you not accept what Paul wrote about it?

I didn't think or imply or say that Homosexuality is natural. If you recall, I viewed being heterosexuality as normal and God given. I also said that I am a heterosexual male and that I cannot choose to be attracted to the same sex; it's NOT an option. So, when you say homosexuality is a choice, that makes no sense to me. Are you saying you can choose to be attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex at your discretion?

Is that not by choice? How could it not be? Clearly, people are not always vain in their imaginations or else it would not say they become that way.

I don't see it as a choice because I don't believe the creature should be creating images of God. But in this case Paul is describing a scenario where mankind is inadvertently doing that (creating an image of God) by imagining they are wise of themselves.

Paul qualifies 'not glorifying God as God', by saying that instead of being thankful to God, they imagined they were wise of themselves.
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

That looks like taking God's wisdom for granted in vainglory to me.

No one purposely decides to become a fool, but they purposely decide to profess themselves to be wise and become fools as a result. That's what I meant all along, just so you know.

Still, if a person is deliberating whether or not to profess themselves as wise, it shows that such a deliberation is based on a false premise. So, it's not exactly the same as them deliberating whether to glorify God as God or not. To me they're reasoning on a false image of God that they are not consciously aware of. I believe that because it happens every time we think we can choose whether God is trustworthy or not.

Concerning fools; A wise person would think themselves a fool out of sincere humility and meekness. Such humility would not be a matter of choosing, but a spiritual quality found in a spiritual mind. The carnal mind would not have the capacity to know that thinking themselves wise and professing themselves wise, shows they are fools. Hence pride goes before a fall.

No, we are debating whether it's a choice or not to refuse to repent and refuse to worship God even after coming to the realization that is what God expects all people to do.

That's not what I'm debating in those terms. I'm debating whether every person has the sight to see that they are sinners, and the honesty to admit they are sinners, and the humility to admit they need God's Spirit to be set free from sin, and whether it's because the Holy Spirit that leads us out of all of that darkness, then God should be thanked even because God has made us thankful.

I believe that is clearly a choice all people need to make and there is no excuse if people choose not to repent of their sins and not to worship God.

Repentance for the remission of sins can also include the humility of admitting to weakness in the flesh, not judging others, and forgiving others their weakness. Consider Pauls' sentiments here:
Romans 2:1-5

1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Paul very clearly said that some people know God and still don't repent of their sins and worship Him.

It would be helpful if you provide the scripture you are referring to. For example, Paul speaks in Romans 1 of a time when mankind knew God but didn't esteem God as God. Then a fall into various levels of sinfulness happened and apparently mankind didn't know God accordingly.

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

The fact that there is no excuse for that clearly implies that it is not natural for them to do that, but rather it happens because they willingly choose not to do it. While others do choose to repent and worship God.

If you're referring to Romans 1, I see Paul saying that there's no excuse for not esteeming God as God. But when Paul says, that God gave mankind up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts because mankind did not esteem God as God, I don't believe Paul is implying "they" decided to have lusts in their hearts and become unclean.

Foreknowing, or knowing that ahead of time, is not the same as predetermining or predestining that to happen. You understand that, don't you?

I know what foreknowledge means and I also know that God has foreordained that He would create children of God. Have you read the parable of the wheat and the tares?

Why do they love the darkness? Because God made them that way? They had no other choice but to love the darkness? That seems to be what you believe, but that is not what scripture teaches. If that was the case, then they would have an excuse for that. How can someone be blamed for loving the darkness if they were made in such a way that they could only love the darkness? That would make no sense. But, scripture says they do not have an excuse for being that way (Romans 1:20) which implies that they use their God-given free will and conscience to choose to love the darkness rather than accepting and embracing the light of the gospel.

First off, I have no problem with believing God in His foreknowledge has prepared a place for the devil and his angels. I'm sure He knows what He's doing according to His purpose.

Spiritual blindness is a disability that affects the soul and the will. I believe a God given free will is one that has been set free by The True Image of God sent by God. Therefore, I do not believe that holding to a corrupt image of God constitutes a free will. If we notice, Jesus talks about the wheat and the tares growing up together, describing tares as being planted by the devil, not God. Therefore, the tares would prefer a lack of clarity because they do not want to be found, while the wheat would like clarity because they want to be found.

Similarly, scripture says those who love darkness do not want to be found:
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can't make any sense of why He would predestine anyone for that purpose and you certainly didn't clear that up with your response. That's what I want you to address specifically. Could He not accomplish the same purpose you described by taking people who have chosen to be wicked (rather than Him predestining them to be wicked) and using them for that purpose? Like Pharaoah, for instance? I would certainly think so (and I believe so). Why the need to predestine them for that purpose? That's my real question which I guess I didn't make clear originally.

I would say, "That IS what he is doing —as you put it, 'taking people who have chosen to be wicked...and using them for that purpose', except that you put in parenthesis this caveat, as if the two notions are mutually exclusive (which they are not): "(rather than Him predestining them to be wicked)". The fact he omnisciently created all things logically demands that he intended them (and us) to be wicked (but had mercy on us, and changed us). The fact that we all have chosen to be wicked is without dispute from you, I expect —it is the default state of all humans but Adam and Eve (though they became that), and Christ, who was never wicked. We all ALWAYS choose wickedness, even when we think to be choosing good, because we are choosing at enmity with God, and for our own sakes and not his. That is the spiritual death into which we are all born.

There is a logical principle built on Cause-and-Effect, that shows the intricate linkage of EVERY fact to EVERY other fact, though it is beyond us to prove empirically, as causation over time is so very intricate. But, I have heard of, though I haven't studied them, experiments done that show an incredible range of outcome differences in two (or more) attempts to start a sequence of cause-and-effect with only one known difference of cause. EVERYTHING affects EVERYTHING. Things we think should not be affected somehow are. —Thus, IF God caused the existence of all fact, (which he did), then all things (including our choices) are a result of that causing that he did (creation). It is that simple. Color it any way you like, describe it however you want; you still can't get away from the fact that God caused it to be.

It's weak for you to suggest that I can't have enough of a concept of love to understand God's love. It's described for us in scripture. It is so great a love that He was willing to come to the earth as a man to suffer for us and shed His blood for "the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2). Why do you think I can't have any understanding of that kind of love? I can understand what it says about God that He was willing to do that. Why would you act like that can't be understood?

Why do you say this when sciripture describes God's love repeatedly? I don't get it.

I didn't say you can't have any understanding of that kind of love. Of course we have some understanding of it! But we don't know enough to know how abundantly his love is answered/explained by his every deed. We don't know enough about it to decide that something can't be, even though logic —(logic at least, I say, to avoid opening a can of worms at this point in the argument about Scripture also saying it)— says so, simply because it doesn't sound like love to us.

Define "opportunity". To me, if they had the opportunity to be saved that means they had a legitimate and sincere chance to be saved. It was truly possible. But, that is not the case for your doctrine because you believe God predestined them to hell without giving them any choice in the matter and therefore no opportunity to be saved.

Try for a moment, to envision a reality where God alone is all there is. Then map out a reality within, and created by that God who lives within that first reality. That reality within the first, is the one we inhabit. Whether or not you or I am correct about what the truth is, the one reality and all that is within it is created by God. Thus, logically, everything within 'our' reality was caused by God.

If, within that framework, these people had a choice (which you and I both maintain that they do), then they had a choice, and no more need be argued about whether they had a choice or not. They chose. The fact that God chose EVERYTHING encompassing 'our' reality is not diminished in the least, nor does his choice diminish the fact of our choices.

They —and we all— choose always in opposition to him, until he changes us. Choice is always according to one's inclinations, and the heart of the unbeliever is always inclined away from God. Each choice is that "opportunity". And each choice in enmity to God is a choice chosen against God. It will not go unanswered.

If He then gives that baby eternal life, sure. Which I believe is the case. You are talking only about something temporal. Surely, babies can't sin and hell is a place where unrepentant sinners are sent to. Scripture never says that babies are condemned. Scripture says that people are condemned for refusing to believe (John 3:18), which is obviously not something babies can do.

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about babies —I'm talking about the fact that God does all sorts of things in scripture that we would not refer to as "loving".

How exactly is God loving people who He predestines for eternal punishment? That's ridiculous.

Do you know why God made anyone? Do you know how far beyond our imagination his love is? You may have heard Bible concerning how much Christ loves the Bride. THIS love is how he made her perfectly suited for him. It involves more than just individuals, as if they are all equally favored or rejected according to their own worth or performance.

Mark Quayle said:
Yes, I didn't address them because they are irrelevant. Your argument is bogus.

Ridiculous. It is very relevant. It's just an argument you probably haven't seen before, so you just immediately brush it off.

I'm trying to bring to mind an argument I haven't heard before, of late. There was one a few weeks back, though it was related to another that I had heard before. Still, it was fun. But no, your "argument" was nothing I haven't seen before.

I'm saying that your whole long argument there, including your use of scripture to make your point, is based on the false notion that something can happen that God did not cause to be. Such would be a bogus argument.

Are you purposely trying to avoid addressing my point? You are changing the subject here. What I'm asking you is if the tax collector in that parable (Luke 18:9-14) had free will and made the choice to humble himself and acknowledge that he is a sinner who can't save himself, is he giving himself glory by doing so? Yes or no? Because your contention is that if the will of man is involved in salvation, then man can take credit for his own salvation. I'm showing you that is not the case. But, you say this argument is irrelevant? No way! It's very relevant.

No, I'm saying that your representation of his 'free will' is short of facts. That he can humble himself, etc, is not the question, but whether he can do so independently of God's causation is the question.

As for the question of whether the will of man is "involved in" salvation, whatever that vague way of putting it means, the real question is whether the will of man in instrumental in causing his salvation. It is not, if salvation is entirely of Grace. By definition.

Imagine someone choosing to do something dumb by jumping off a boat into the water as it approaches the shore and saying they will just swim the rest of the way to the shore. But, then an undercurrent starts pulling them under and then are then in danger of drowning. At first, they think they can overcome this so they foolishly keep trying to swim for shore even though in reality there's no way they can make it without drowning first. Then, let's say someone on the boat throws a floating ring attached to a rope out to the person who is struggling to stay above the water. The person then has to decide if they will humble themselves and accept the help or pridefully keep trying to swim to shore themselves while saying "Thanks, but no thanks.". But, then, realizing they are not making any progress towards the shore, they decide to take hold of the life ring and are pulled back to safety in the boat.

Did the drowning person save themselves in this scenario? Can they take credit for saving themselves? No, right? The person on the boat saved them and they deserve all the credit for saving that person. This is how I see it with salvation. God did all the work to save people. There's no work we can do to save ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-10). But, we can humble ourselves and acknowledge that to God and accept His offer of salvation (Titus 2:11). Doing so by choice does not mean we can take credit for our salvation. We merely accepted God's offer in this case. So, when Calvinists try to say that people like me try to say that man can take credit for his own salvation and earn his own salvation, that is simply not true. It's a straw man argument. It's only an argument that can be made against those who claim that we are saved by works.

Your description is not a valid representation of the task ahead of the self-determinist to "accept" in any valid way. His every thought and purpose is contrary to God.

If the claim by God is that man is saved by Grace alone, and that man apart from being born again is DEAD in his sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1), and unwilling and unable to submit to God's law and unable to please God (Romans 8), then explain to me how they are able to do anything —anything, including to humble themselves— that will render them able to grab hold to the life saver.

I completely disagree. God does not determine the things that He punishes people for. You do believe that He punishes people, right? That would be like Him admitting that He made a mistake when those people do those things, which is ridiculous. No, He punishes people for rebelling against Him by not doing what He wanted them to do. If He determined all things, then that would mean everything that happens is what He wanted to happen, which is clearly not the case. If it was then there would be no such thing as rebellion and no such thing as God's wrath, yet we see those things described in scripture many times.

You do realize that is merely human reasoning, right, and not described that way in Scripture? But this has gone on long enough, for one post. I'll try to get to the rest when I can. Been very busy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I completely disagree. God does not determine the things that He punishes people for. You do believe that He punishes people, right? That would be like Him admitting that He made a mistake when those people do those things, which is ridiculous. No, He punishes people for rebelling against Him by not doing what He wanted them to do. If He determined all things, then that would mean everything that happens is what He wanted to happen, which is clearly not the case. If it was then there would be no such thing as rebellion and no such thing as God's wrath, yet we see those things described in scripture many times.

Think about the implications of what you are saying. You are issuing a value statement, that what seems fair to you is of more concern than what is logical. You can't tell me the it is illogical for God to know what would result when he made everything that would result, but you ignore that simple logic in order to say that God would be unfair to punish people for what he intended to happen.

You may have already heard of this, and maybe not, but people like me tend to consider 'will of God' or 'what God wants' in at least two different ways as referred to in the Bible. One of these has to do with his ultimate will, or "hidden" will —his plan, or "decree"— that which he spoke into being from the beginning and is bringing to completion, culminating with Heaven; this one is "whatever actually happens". The other is typically referred to as his revealed will, or, "command" —this is not what "IS" but what "OUGHT".

Your belief is that we are basically robots or puppets that God does with as He pleases while not making us responsible for anything (How can we be responsible for anything if God determines everything? Impossible). You ignore the fact that human beings have a soul and a will and are able to use reason and have a God-given conscience that He expects us to use to make the right decisions.

No, that is not my belief. I ignore none of that, except the construction that claims God cannot be just to cause what he punishes.

You are only looking at a small picture rather than the big picture. And you are making assumptions about what being dead in sins means. It it not meant to be compared directly to being physically dead and unconscious, as I believe you probably do. It simply refers to people being separated from God because of sin and has nothing to do with what someone is or is not capable of doing. Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32). Sinners who are dead in their sins. Nowhere does He indicate that sinners need to be regenerated first before answering His call to repentance.

Read Ephesians 2 again, where it says, "Dead". Following that, it says we were BY NATURE deserving of wrath. Romans 5 also says we were helpless. Ephesians emphasizes that our being made alive is by GRACE, and NOT OF OURSELVES, but you are adding in the ability to humble oneself and accept (submit to) what one hates— but not only what one is at enmity with, but what one cannot understand, nor has any integrity with which to commit to; you would have one's eternity hinging on their decision, and not on God's.

Mark Quayle said:
Do you honestly think that any good thing comes spontaneously from within us? Or is every good and perfect gift from God?

To answer your first question: No, I don't. Instead, I believe we need to humble ourselves and admit to God that we are not good and are sinners in need of His mercy just like the tax collector in the parable in Luke 18:9-14.

If not anything good comes spontaneously from within us, then how can we humble ourselves and admit to God that we are not good? Only if God has changed our fleshly mind to spiritual. (Romans 8)

Mark Quayle said:
Do you honestly think that any good thing comes spontaneously from within us? Or is every good and perfect gift from God?

To answer your second question: Yes.

These are questions you should ask someone who thinks we can be saved by our own righteousness and good works. I don't believe that.

If Every good and perfect gift is from God, then our ability to accept him is also from him. Apart from him we can do nothing. To humble oneself, is righteousness. To "accept" him is supernatural.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I would say, "That IS what he is doing —as you put it, 'taking people who have chosen to be wicked...and using them for that purpose', except that you put in parenthesis this caveat, as if the two notions are mutually exclusive (which they are not): "(rather than Him predestining them to be wicked)". The fact he omnisciently created all things logically demands that he intended them (and us) to be wicked (but had mercy on us, and changed us). The fact that we all have chosen to be wicked is without dispute from you, I expect —it is the default state of all humans but Adam and Eve (though they became that), and Christ, who was never wicked. We all ALWAYS choose wickedness, even when we think to be choosing good, because we are choosing at enmity with God, and for our own sakes and not his. That is the spiritual death into which we are all born.

It's one thing to be a sinner. It's another thing to be the kind of people Paul describes in Romans 1:18-32. You make no differentiation between being a sinner and being the type of people who are described in that passage. Why? In that passage Paul describes people who knew God, but willingly suppressed the truth and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, and they "became vain in their imaginations" and "became fools". And some of them exchanged having natural sexual relations with the opposite sex with unnatural relations with the same sex. And Paul indicated that they had no excuse for that. But, in your view they have an excuse. In your view God made them to be that way. What better excuse could they have than to just be able to say "Well, God made me this way and I have no choice and no ability to be any other way"? Can you see my point here? So, how do you reconcile the fact that Paul said they have no excuse with your claim that people are born that way?

If people were born the way the people are described in Romans 1:18-32 then it couldn't be said that they "became vain in their imaginations" and "became fools". Your doctrine says they are born as fools who are vain in their imaginations. And it couldn't be that
"they knew God" (Romans 1:21), but then at some point "changed the truth of God into a lie" (Romans 1:25) because in your doctrine the wicked never know God and are born not believing the truth of God.

Your description is not a valid representation of the task ahead of the self-determinist to "accept" in any valid way. His every thought and purpose is contrary to God.

It's very clear to me that you have either never read Romans 1:18-32 carefully or you just don't understand it. If "every thought and purpose" that people have from birth "is contrary to God", as you believe, then how can it be that the people Paul describes in Romans 1:18-32 "knew God"? How can it be that they "became vain in their imaginations" and "became fools" if they were that way from birth, as you believe?

If the claim by God is that man is saved by Grace alone, and that man apart from being born again is DEAD in his sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1), and unwilling and unable to submit to God's law and unable to please God (Romans 8), then explain to me how they are able to do anything —anything, including to humble themselves— that will render them able to grab hold to the life saver.

First of all, man is saved by Grace alone through faith alone. You forgot the faith part for some reason.

Also, the picture you posted compares being dead in sins to being physically dead, which scripture never does! So, that is an extra-biblical concept that Calvinism has created. Please, just stick to scripture. And scripture NEVER indicates that being dead in sins equates to having no ability to make choices, including choosing to humble oneself while acknowledging that they can't save themselves while placing their trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13). He calls sinners who are dead in sins to repentance. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). That strongly implies that all people are able to repent and are expected to repent. But, your doctrine denies that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Think about the implications of what you are saying.

Who said I don't? That is what I wish you would do.

You are issuing a value statement, that what seems fair to you is of more concern than what is logical. You can't tell me the it is illogical for God to know what would result when he made everything that would result, but you ignore that simple logic in order to say that God would be unfair to punish people for what he intended to happen.

Say what now? I'm sorry, but this made no sense. Can you try again? God knowing something beforehand does not equate to Him predetermining that thing to happen. But, that seems to be what you're saying. But, I'm not sure since you were not clear in what you said here. So, please clarify.

You may have already heard of this, and maybe not, but people like me tend to consider 'will of God' or 'what God wants' in at least two different ways as referred to in the Bible.

I see it that way as well. It's very clear that scripture differentiates between what I'll call His unthwartable will and His thwartable desires.

An example of His unthwartable will is that from before the foundation of the world He was going to send His Son to earth to die for the sins of the whole world. Since He exists outside of time, He knew people would sin before He created them. So, He already had a plan to redeem people from their sins. Nothing could stop that from happening. And, of course, it did happen.

An example of His thwartable desires would be His desire for all people to repent (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30). It's undeniable that He wants all people to repent. Even if you try to say that 2 Peter 3:9 isn't referring to all people (it is), you can't say that about Acts 17:30. And, yet, not all people do repent. What does that say to you? What it says to me is that He holds people responsible to repent and the only reason they don't has nothing to do with any kind of failing of God, but rather is because of man using his God-given free will to choose not to repent even though God expected and commanded Him to repent and gave him the ability to do so.

One of these has to do with his ultimate will, or "hidden" will —his plan, or "decree"— that which he spoke into being from the beginning and is bringing to completion, culminating with Heaven; this one is "whatever actually happens". The other is typically referred to as his revealed will, or, "command" —this is not what "IS" but what "OUGHT".

Yeah, Calvinism makes this way more complicated than it actually is, in my opinion.

Your belief is that we are basically robots or puppets that God does with as He pleases while not making us responsible for anything (How can we be responsible for anything if God determines everything? Impossible). You ignore the fact that human beings have a soul and a will and are able to use reason and have a God-given conscience that He expects us to use to make the right decisions.

No, that is not my belief. I ignore none of that, except the construction that claims God cannot be just to cause what he punishes.

Can you explain how what I described is not your belief? Are you then saying that God does make man responsible to make the right decisions rather than the wrong decisions? If so, what exactly do you think God makes man responsible for as it relates to making decisions using their own wills, consciences and reasoning abilities?

Read Ephesians 2 again, where it says, "Dead". Following that, it says we were BY NATURE deserving of wrath.

Yep. Never said otherwise. Did you think I believed otherwise? If so, then I wonder how closely you've actually been paying attention to what I've said in this thread because I've never said one thing to indicate otherwise. Apart from God's grace, we are doomed. I think all Christians understand that whether they are Calvinists or not. That is no mystery. But, scripture says "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people." (Titus 2:11). So, even though we are indeed deserving of wrath apart from God's grace, we also, because of God's grace, all have the opportunity to be saved from His wrath.

Romans 5 also says we were helpless.

Yep. Without God's grace, there is no hope. Never said otherwise. Calvinists like to think that they alone fully believe in God's grace and everyone else does not, but that is not true at all. That God makes man responsible to use his free will to choose to accept or reject His gracious offer of salvation takes nothing away from His grace.

Ephesians emphasizes that our being made alive is by GRACE, and NOT OF OURSELVES, but you are adding in the ability to humble oneself and accept (submit to) what one hates— but not only what one is at enmity with, but what one cannot understand, nor has any integrity with which to commit to; you would have one's eternity hinging on their decision, and not on God's.

You are falsely representing my view. I hope it's not on purpose. I'll graciously assume it's not. Look at Ephesians 2:8-10 more carefully.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

You think this says that we are saved by God's grace and not of ourselves at all. That is NOT what this says. Instead, what this says is that we are saved by God's grace through faith and not of our own works. Why do you not differentiate between faith and works when Paul did? He said we ARE saved by grace through faith, but NOT saved by works. The works God prepared for us come AFTER we are saved. Why are you equating faith with works when Paul contrasted the two? James contrasts the two in James 2 as well. So, why do you make faith a kind of work of which we are not saved when Paul did not? You should not do that since scripture does not do that.

Mark Quayle said:
Do you honestly think that any good thing comes spontaneously from within us? Or is every good and perfect gift from God?

If not anything good comes spontaneously from within us, then how can we humble ourselves and admit to God that we are not good? Only if God has changed our fleshly mind to spiritual. (Romans 8)

You are not understanding my view. Didn't I already answer this question or am I thinking of someone else? I know I answered that question from someone. Anyway, my answer to your first question is no. My answer to your second question is yes. Why did you make a comment about this without letting me answer the questions first instead of assuming what my answers would be?

In my view, humbling ourselves involves admitting that we are not good, that we are sinners, and cannot save ourselves. Is that a case of something spontaneously good/righteous/holy coming from within us? No. It's just the opposite of that.

Mark Quayle said:
Do you honestly think that any good thing comes spontaneously from within us? Or is every good and perfect gift from God?

If Every good and perfect gift is from God, then our ability to accept him is also from him. Apart from him we can do nothing. To humble oneself, is righteousness. To "accept" him is supernatural.

You are making things up that are not taught in scripture. Nowhere does scripture teach that humbling oneself is righteousness. It's the right thing to do in response to God's command for us to repent, but it's not righteousness in and of itself. Instead, it's an admission of being unrighteous and being in need of God's mercy and forgiveness.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's one thing to be a sinner. It's another thing to be the kind of people Paul describes in Romans 1:18-32. You make no differentiation between being a sinner and being the type of people who are described in that passage. Why? In that passage Paul describes people who knew God, but willingly suppressed the truth and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, and they "became vain in their imaginations" and "became fools". And some of them exchanged having natural sexual relations with the opposite sex with unnatural relations with the same sex. And Paul indicated that they had no excuse for that. But, in your view they have an excuse. In your view God made them to be that way. What better excuse could they have than to just be able to say "Well, God made me this way and I have no choice and no ability to be any other way"? Can you see my point here? So, how do you reconcile the fact that Paul said they have no excuse with your claim that people are born that way?

I have no problem seeing your point, and you are right that I include all humanity into Romans 1. The degree to which the unsaved go into their corruption does not distinguish them from other unsaved. Those who don't have the Spirit of God within them are corrupt to the core.

My problem is seeing why you make a difference. Romans 1 tells us how they knew him. It is not talking about erstwhile believers, but about those who from the beginning have rejected what is clearly seen concerning God, and suppressed that knowledge. That is, every man, woman, and child, until (and if) they are born again by the Spirit of God. By the way, and not that they do have any excuse for sexual deviance, but what is referred to as being without excuse is the suppression of what is plainly shown them concerning God.

In my view none of us have any excuse. WE suppress the obvious. The only good in us is Christ.

If people were born the way the people are described in Romans 1:18-32 then it couldn't be said that they "became vain in their imaginations" and "became fools". Your doctrine says they are born as fools who are vain in their imaginations. And it couldn't be that
"they knew God" (Romans 1:21), but then at some point "changed the truth of God into a lie" (Romans 1:25) because in your doctrine the wicked never know God and are born not believing the truth of God.

The grammar in the Greek doesn't imply that they are born pure of heart. It builds on the construction that begins with the fact that what may be known about God has been clearly seen. There is no transition of character. The transition is rhetorical, showing the difference between what should be, and what is.

Furthermore, if you are correct, that this is not talking about most people, but only about some few who for some reason knew God and left him, (perhaps (to help your argument out here) the old Jews who have left what they were brought up being told, unlike the Gentiles who have not been shown), then the argument, that God is not fair to choose only some, fails concerning these. Likewise, the argument you show here —that only some have suppressed truth they actually at some earlier point knew— is contradicted by what I believe to be even your doctrines, in which ALL have sinned and fallen short. Whether you are saying that some are born innocent and others are not, or saying that all are born innocent and all at some point begin sinning, or saying that all are born sort-of innocent, are you saying that some do not suppress truth? Are there some who have not sinned and fallen short? Because all who have sinned and fallen short have suppressed the truth.

It's very clear to me that you have either never read Romans 1:18-32 carefully or you just don't understand it. If "every thought and purpose" that people have from birth "is contrary to God", as you believe, then how can it be that the people Paul describes in Romans 1:18-32 "knew God"? How can it be that they "became vain in their imaginations" and "became fools" if they were that way from birth, as you believe?

"It's very clear to me that you have" assumed you understand language, and particularly the Greek, well enough to make your pronouncement, ignoring Paul's rhetorical method, and are thereby worthy to make deprecatory language against my view, and against my care of Scripture. Like myself, you will be measured against your own standard by which you measure me.

Further, you have not shown my opinion —that we are born corrupt— to be wrong, even if your view of the language is correct that there is implied a time passage between "knew" and "became"; it is only a reference to the fact of a type of knowledge that does not imply submission, such knowledge as a deist might have, who merely believes that there is a god, with no implication of submission to God. In this view, the deist, and the child, too, suppress their knowledge in favor of their corruption, and are therefore without excuse.

First of all, man is saved by Grace alone through faith alone. You forgot the faith part for some reason.

Forgot it? —Hardly. Salvific faith, in spite of protests to the contrary by those who insist that the Greek says only that Salvation is the gift referred to in Ephesians 2:8, 9, and that the grammar and logic of the statement does not imply that grace nor faith is also the gift, the faith is a gift of God, generated by the Spirit of God within the redeemed. I assumed this fact concerning faith in the very definitions of the wording in my posts. Yours assumes worthy and able faith is somehow generated by the human —and this you say, while admitting that apart from God man can do nothing good, and, in fact, that the only good within us is God. One may decide to believe all one wants to, but he cannot believe salvifically, apart from the gift of God, by grace alone —that faith by which we are able to believe, not to mention by which we are able to continue in him.

Also, the picture you posted compares being dead in sins to being physically dead, which scripture never does! So, that is an extra-biblical concept that Calvinism has created. Please, just stick to scripture. And scripture NEVER indicates that being dead in sins equates to having no ability to make choices, including choosing to humble oneself while acknowledging that they can't save themselves while placing their trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13). He calls sinners who are dead in sins to repentance. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). That strongly implies that all people are able to repent and are expected to repent. But, your doctrine denies that.

Ephesians 2 calls it dead. And Romans 8 calls it unable.

The command by God to be holy as God is holy, and to repent, and to love the Lord with all one's being, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, does not imply the ability of anyone to obey, apart from God giving them that ability. The command demonstrates our desperate need for Christ— not our ability to obey.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have no problem seeing your point, and you are right that I include all humanity into Romans 1. The degree to which the unsaved go into their corruption does not distinguish them from other unsaved. Those who don't have the Spirit of God within them are corrupt to the core.

But, isn't it your belief that people are born "vain in their imaginations" and born as "fools" who "suppress the truth" and "exchange the truth of God for a lie" while not glorifying God or being thankful to Him? Or am I thinking of someone else? Romans 1 talks about people who knew God (knew everything they needed to know about God in order to be expected to glorify Him and be thankful to Him) but they became vain in their imaginations and became fools who exchange the truth for a lie while worshiping the creature more than the Creator and it indicates that people have no excuse for that. Doesn't the idea that people are born that way and supposedly can't be any other way give them an excuse for being that way? I am not seeing how you can reconcile Romans 1:16-32 with your doctrine.

My problem is seeing why you make a difference. Romans 1 tells us how they knew him. It is not talking about erstwhile believers, but about those who from the beginning have rejected what is clearly seen concerning God, and suppressed that knowledge. That is, every man, woman, and child, until (and if) they are born again by the Spirit of God.

So, there is no choice but to be the kind of people that Paul described, which would then mean that people don't choose to be homosexuals (Romans 1:26-27)? I would hope that you don't try to claim that any people are naturally homosexual, especially since Paul specifically called it unnatural. People choose to be the way Paul described in Romans 1 and they become that way and they are not that way from birth. You should read Romans 1 accordingly. I don't think you're fully thinking this through.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

You think this describes all people? Come on now. Please be reasonable. We all have "a reprobate mind" to the point where we are filled with "fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy" and..."murder"? No, that does not describe all people. Did you ever kill anyone? Were you a murderer before you were saved? You don't have to answer that (haha), but I would highly doubt it. Neither was I. And I doubt you were homosexual, either. So, Paul is definitely not talking about all people in Romans 1. Again, he said people "become" the way he described there. You're acting as if people are that way from birth. Not so. He's talking about how people can get after a number of years of continual rebellion against God. Their hearts get more and more hardened to the point of having a reprobate mind. Not everyone has a reprobate mind.

By the way, and not that they do have any excuse for sexual deviance, but what is referred to as being without excuse is the suppression of what is plainly shown them concerning God.

They don't have an excuse for anything Paul describes. That includes them not glorifying God as God, not being thankful to God, suppressing the truth, exchanging the truth for a lie, worshiping the creature more than the Creator, and exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones and so on.

In my view none of us have any excuse. WE suppress the obvious. The only good in us is Christ.

I agree with this, but we're not all homosexuals and we don't all worship idols and don't all kill people and so on like what Paul described. But, anyway, let's focus on this idea that people don't have an excuse for sinning. I agree. That's why I believe in free will. If we didn't have free will we would have an excuse for sinning because we then couldn't be blamed for making that choice since there would be no other choice to make. But, people don't have an excuse, so the reason people sin and rebel against God is entirely their own fault and not because they can't help but disobey God.

The grammar in the Greek doesn't imply that they are born pure of heart.

That isn't what I'm saying. My goodness. Seriously? That's what you thought I was saying? Of course, everyone has a natural tendency to sin and they will sin once they are old enough to understand what they're doing. What I'm saying is that not everyone is born as a fool who is vain in their imaginations and who exchanges their natural knowledge of what God has made known about Himself to them for a lie. Instead, people become that way. They become people who bow down to idols and become people who exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural ones and become murderers and so on. To act as if everyone is born doing the things that Paul described in Romans 1:18-32 makes no sense at all. Natural tendency to sin? Yes. Of course. Natural tendency to be an idol worshiper, a homosexual or a murderer and so on? Nah.

It builds on the construction that begins with the fact that what may be known about God has been clearly seen. There is no transition of character. The transition is rhetorical, showing the difference between what should be, and what is.

I don't know what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

Furthermore, if you are correct, that this is not talking about most people, but only about some few who for some reason knew God and left him, (perhaps (to help your argument out here) the old Jews who have left what they were brought up being told, unlike the Gentiles who have not been shown), then the argument, that God is not fair to choose only some, fails concerning these. Likewise, the argument you show here —that only some have suppressed truth they actually at some earlier point knew— is contradicted by what I believe to be even your doctrines, in which ALL have sinned and fallen short.

Okay, we are just not on the same page here. You're arguing with a straw man. I, of course, do not deny that all people sin once they are old enough to know and understand what sin is. For goodness sakes, you can't possibly think that 's what I'm trying to say? Are we speaking the same language? I'm starting to think this is not worth it. It takes too much effort on my part to get you to understand what I believe.

Whether you are saying that some are born innocent and others are not, or saying that all are born innocent and all at some point begin sinning, or saying that all are born sort-of innocent, are you saying that some do not suppress truth? Are there some who have not sinned and fallen short? Because all who have sinned and fallen short have suppressed the truth.

This proves it even further. You have no idea of what I believe or what I'm trying to tell you. Maybe I'm just not good at explaining myself? Or maybe you are not good with reading comprehension? Maybe a bit of both? I don't know. But, this is just not worth it. Thanks for the discussion, anyway.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
I have no problem seeing your point, and you are right that I include all humanity into Romans 1. The degree to which the unsaved go into their corruption does not distinguish them from other unsaved. Those who don't have the Spirit of God within them are corrupt to the core.

But, isn't it your belief that people are born "vain in their imaginations" and born as "fools" who "suppress the truth" and "exchange the truth of God for a lie" while not glorifying God or being thankful to Him? Or am I thinking of someone else? Romans 1 talks about people who knew God (knew everything they needed to know about God in order to be expected to glorify Him and be thankful to Him) but they became vain in their imaginations and became fools who exchange the truth for a lie while worshiping the creature more than the Creator and it indicates that people have no excuse for that. Doesn't the idea that people are born that way and supposedly can't be any other way give them an excuse for being that way? I am not seeing how you can reconcile Romans 1:16-32 with your doctrine.

It is my belief that we are all born corrupt to the core. To what degree, and how, and when they increase their corruption and their slavery to sin is another matter. They being born that way is why they choose it —and that, of their own will, their own choice, according to their "mind of flesh". If you think that isn't just, take it up with the one who says it, in Romans 8.

But you apparently hadn't read where I said that what you take to mean that they at one time knew him and later suppressed that truth, etc, is not talking about passage of time, but about what should be, vs what is. There's no point in continuing the above argument, without doing away with my point, there, first.

Frankly, it amazes me that we think ourselves so far above dirt, compared to God, that it is ok for God to make dirt and destroy it, but not to do that to us. Who, or better, what, are we, apart from him? Must we be so stuck in our notions of self-worth that our self-esteem is not built on God's purpose and use for us, and God's assessment of us? Where is the scriptural categorical statement that we deserve life?

So, there is no choice but to be the kind of people that Paul described, which would then mean that people don't choose to be homosexuals (Romans 1:26-27)? I would hope that you don't try to claim that any people are naturally homosexual, especially since Paul specifically called it unnatural. People choose to be the way Paul described in Romans 1 and they become that way and they are not that way from birth. You should read Romans 1 accordingly. I don't think you're fully thinking this through.

No, I don't claim that, though that is hardly relevant here. (Whether or not they are born with certain inclinations is immaterial as to what they do. It is an abomination, and those that do it are not going to see the Kingdom of Heaven. It says nothing about them being born one way or the other. You are sloughing the terms, making his use of "unnatural" deeds to mean that they could not have been born with sinful inclinations. In other words, your argument is circular. You are assuming that they are not born with sinful inclinations in order to show that Paul necessarily meant that they could not have been born with those inclinations.)

I don't think you are fully thinking this through. You are even condemning those who have sinful inclinations, (of a certain sort), instead of only those who practice sinful deeds. There are lifelong "homosexuals" (using your terminology for them, and the world's), who will have unnatural urges the rest of their lives, but do not do the deed, because they have chosen not to be homosexuals.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

You think this describes all people? Come on now. Please be reasonable. We all have "a reprobate mind" to the point where we are filled with "fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy" and..."murder"? No, that does not describe all people. Did you ever kill anyone? Were you a murderer before you were saved? You don't have to answer that (haha), but I would highly doubt it. Neither was I. And I doubt you were homosexual, either. So, Paul is definitely not talking about all people in Romans 1. Again, he said people "become" the way he described there. You're acting as if people are that way from birth. Not so. He's talking about how people can get after a number of years of continual rebellion against God. Their hearts get more and more hardened to the point of having a reprobate mind. Not everyone has a reprobate mind.

I showed further on that I see no reason to assume Paul meant that the whole description on what happened to those people meant that everyone became a homosexual. Do you honestly believe that everyone who suppresses the truth is a homosexual?

They don't have an excuse for anything Paul describes. That includes them not glorifying God as God, not being thankful to God, suppressing the truth, exchanging the truth for a lie, worshiping the creature more than the Creator, and exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones and so on.

Not that I disagree with you that they have no excuse for those things, but you will have to show grammatically how Paul means the whole gambit is without excuse. That isn't what he said.

I agree with this, but we're not all homosexuals and we don't all worship idols and don't all kill people and so on like what Paul described. But, anyway, let's focus on this idea that people don't have an excuse for sinning. I agree.

Well, then, let's look at the question of what sin is. How does sin not suppress the truth of what can be known about God? Nobody has any excuse for sinning. It fits Romans 1 perfectly.

That's why I believe in free will. If we didn't have free will we would have an excuse for sinning because we then couldn't be blamed for making that choice since there would be no other choice to make.

Where does that mean there is no other choice to make? We see options, we choose. The fact we see options doesn't mean that there is any reason to believe that either option was equally possible.

But, people don't have an excuse, so the reason people sin and rebel against God is entirely their own fault and not because they can't help but disobey God.

Agreed it is their fault. I haven't said otherwise. They choose according to their inclinations. But now, let me introduce a thought here: If you can show me any goodness within anyone, that is not God doing it, please do so. The Romans 8 "heart of flesh" can choose as it pleases, and always chooses as it pleases, which is sin —even in the doing of good deeds. There are many who think to be "accepting" Christ into their hearts, who are not. There is not a one of us, who, but for Christ in us, chooses unselfishly. We do what we most want to do at any moment.

That isn't what I'm saying. My goodness. Seriously? That's what you thought I was saying? Of course, everyone has a natural tendency to sin and they will sin once they are old enough to understand what they're doing. What I'm saying is that not everyone is born as a fool who is vain in their imaginations and who exchanges their natural knowledge of what God has made known about Himself to them for a lie. Instead, people become that way. They become people who bow down to idols and become people who exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural ones and become murderers and so on. To act as if everyone is born doing the things that Paul described in Romans 1:18-32 makes no sense at all. Natural tendency to sin? Yes. Of course. Natural tendency to be an idol worshiper, a homosexual or a murderer and so on? Nah.

Ok, I'm done arguing that point. It is moot. You are still using Paul's use of "natural" to mean your use of it, which you assume to be real by the notion that people are not born sinful.

Mark Quayle said:
It builds on the construction that begins with the fact that what may be known about God has been clearly seen. There is no transition of character. The transition is rhetorical, showing the difference between what should be, and what is.

I don't know what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

Paul's use of "became", and such, may well be seen in the worsening of one's depravity, but it also is a rhetorical introduction of the question of what "should be" —that they have seen enough that they knew— that they are without excuse for suppressing the truth etc. It does not mean that they ACTUALLY knew the truth, but discarded it. Nobody but the regenerated know the truth, and even we know it in a very stunted way.

Okay, we are just not on the same page here. You're arguing with a straw man. I, of course, do not deny that all people sin once they are old enough to know and understand what sin is. For goodness sakes, you can't possibly think that 's what I'm trying to say? Are we speaking the same language? I'm starting to think this is not worth it. It takes too much effort on my part to get you to understand what I believe.

Yep. I agree with this!

This proves it even further. You have no idea of what I believe or what I'm trying to tell you. Maybe I'm just not good at explaining myself? Or maybe you are not good with reading comprehension? Maybe a bit of both? I don't know. But, this is just not worth it. Thanks for the discussion, anyway.

This proves what even further?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Well, then, let's look at the question of what sin is. How does sin not suppress the truth of what can be known about God? Nobody has any excuse for sinning. It fits Romans 1 perfectly.

I had responded to the rest of your post before I got to this and realized that most of what I was saying in response is that you were talking to a straw man and weren't understanding what I was saying and what I believe. But, I deleted all that because that is all pointless and a waste of time. But, I did want to discuss what you said here.

In some ways sin in general can fit with Romans 1 in the sense that God does not give anyone an excuse for any sin. But, are all unsaved people murderers? Are they all vain in their imaginations? Are they all fools who suppress their knowledge of who God is? No. Paul very clearly said that people BECOME that way. So, you can't say that all unsaved people are at the point of what the people described in Romans 1 had BECOME.

So, before anyone BECOMES that way, they are NOT yet that way. Not yet a homosexual. Not yet a murderer. Not yet worshiping animals. And so on. This is what I wish you would address. People who you think will inevitably BECOME that way, but are not yet that way (have not yet BECOME vain in their imaginations, have not yet BECOME fools who have suppressed their knowledge of God, etc.

Are people who are not yet that way not capable of repenting of their sins BEFORE they get that way? I don't believe that. But, for some reason, you do. You said earlier in your post that you believe all unsaved people are "corrupt to the core". Well, I think that describes the people in Romans 1, but people BECOME that way and are not that way from birth. So, not all unsaved people are that way or at least are not that way yet.

You do not seem to differentiate between a person's flesh and their spirit. Paul indicate that the two are at war with each other (Romans 7). Jesus said, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41). So, someone can want to do what is right, but end up giving in to the flesh because of their weakness.

So, most of the time people will fail to do what's right even if they want to do what's right. That's why people aren't capable of earning their own salvation. They are sinners. Their flesh is weak. However, all people have a spirit and a conscience as well. The flesh or sinful nature is not all there is to a person. So, before a person gets to the point of what Paul talks about in Romans 1, why can't they use their God given spirit and conscience to acknowledge to God that their flesh is too weak to do what they know is right and to surrender their wills and spirits to Him while humbling themselves and admitting that they are sinners who can't save themselves?

I know we are not righteous in and of ourselves and our righteousness is as filthy rags, but why do you think unsaved people can't choose to respond favorably to God's command for them to repent (Acts 17:30)? Why does He command all people everywhere to repent if some naturally can't repent, as you believe? Doing so by choice is not a case of them earning their own salvation by works, as you imagine. It's instead a case of them admitting they are lost sinners who can't earn their own salvation. No one would try to take credit for their own salvation after admitting to God and relenting to His call to repent while admitting that they could not save themselves.

Where does that mean there is no other choice to make? We see options, we choose. The fact we see options doesn't mean that there is any reason to believe that either option was equally possible.

But, in the case of the non-elect (unsaved), you believe that any other "choice" but for them to be "corrupt to the core" is impossible. So, you are being a bit misleading with your comment here by merely saying the choices are not equally possible. You believe that only one "choice" is possible while the other "choice" is impossible. That's definitely not equally possible, but it's also a case of only one option being possible with the other option not being possible. What kind of "choice" is that?

Agreed it is their fault. I haven't said otherwise. They choose according to their inclinations.

Who created them with those inclinations? How exactly is it their fault if they have no choice but to act according to their inclinations?

But now, let me introduce a thought here: If you can show me any goodness within anyone, that is not God doing it, please do so.

This shows yet again how you do not understand what I believe. For you to ask me this implies that you think I believe that someone can be good or righteous in and of themselves. No! I do not believe that. All are sinners (Romans 3:23). But, what I do believe is that all people have a God-given spirit and conscience (a free will) that they can use to choose to either acknowledging that they are sinners who are not good/righteous and need God's mercy and forgiveness or stubbornly choose to resist it when the Holy Spirit speaks to their conscience like the religious Jews Stephen rebuked did (see Acts 7:51).

Ok, I'm done arguing that point. It is moot. You are still using Paul's use of "natural" to mean your use of it, which you assume to be real by the notion that people are not born sinful.

Let me say yet again. I believe that people are born with a sinful nature, as the NIV puts it. A natural inclination to sin. That's why Paul said "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). It's not as if anyone is capable of never sinning (except for Jesus, of course). But, at the same time I don't believe that babies can sin (that's insane!) or anything ridiculous like that. What having a sinful nature means is that a person will inevitably sin once they acutally understand what sin is. Paul explained this.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

Can you see what Paul said here? Before he became aware of the law (God's commands) he didn't know what sin was. How can someone sin without even knowing what sin is? That's what Paul is saying. But, once someone knows what sin is, they will inevitably sin because even though the spirit might be willing, the flesh is weak (Matt 26:41). So, to say that someone sins even from birth contradicts what Paul wrote here. People can't sin until they understand what sin is and that makes perfect sense to me. Now, at what point that is for any given person, it probably depends on the person. I'll let God sort that out.

Mark Quayle said:
It builds on the construction that begins with the fact that what may be known about God has been clearly seen. There is no transition of character. The transition is rhetorical, showing the difference between what should be, and what is.

Paul's use of "became", and such, may well be seen in the worsening of one's depravity,

That's very clearly what Paul meant by that. I think trying to make it mean anything else is only based on doctrinal bias.

but it also is a rhetorical introduction of the question of what "should be" —that they have seen enough that they knew— that they are without excuse for suppressing the truth etc. It does not mean that they ACTUALLY knew the truth, but discarded it. Nobody but the regenerated know the truth, and even we know it in a very stunted way.

I completely disagree. I think you are making a mockery of what Paul wrote in Romans 1. How can someone suppress the truth about God if they never actually knew it? That makes no sense at all. I could not possibly disagree more with you about this and I fully believe that your view on this is influenced heavily by doctrinal bias.

Yep. I agree with this!

Great! Let us celebrate that we agree on something! Woohoo!

This proves what even further?

LOL. Really? What I said right after saying that is what I believe was proven further. Right after saying that I said "You have no idea of what I believe or what I'm trying to tell you". I had already made that point and then I read your post further and you proved it again by once again misrepresenting what I believe.

Anyway, Mark, we can wrap this up anytime. You can choose to respond to what I've said here or not. It doesn't matter much to me. We can respectfully agree to disagree and move on if you want. If that's what you decide, then thanks for the discussion.