While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity...

[Received]

Recieved,

That is a very good question. I hope you will allow to suggest a link. It is to an article I posted a while back that I think addressess what you ask. It is here: Romans 9:14-20

In Christ,
Kenith

The passages quoted specify value judgments -- i.e. "is this good, bad, just?" as it relates to God's action, particularly God's election from the Calvinistic viewpoint. I'm not interested in value judgements, but contradictions. It simply makes no sense for God to ask a man to do something he cannot do. Anything contradictory is something non-existent -- there are no square-circles, for instance; with this in mind, God cannot do a contradiction, cannot punish men for doing something they could not but help to do. It would not be called a punishment in this case -- punishment occurs upon the not-doing of something obligated, or the doing of something forbidden. Man is not doing these things; his sinful nature is; the man is simply the bullet being shot from the gun; it is the nature that is continually pulling the trigger. To claim otherwise makes you a non-calvinist from the aspect of total depravity.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

There is no contradiction here. God did not create man as a purely individualistic being. Man was created to exist in Covenant with God. The head of our race (our Federal or Covenant head) when He sinned I to sinned in him (covenantally speaking).

God's standard does not change because man broke God's covenant and (through no compulsion) became rebels against the creator. Remember "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" (Ex. 20:5)

"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."(Ex 34:7)

"The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."(Num 14:18)

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"(Deut. 5:9)

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

God created man who was able to keep His commandments. Man fell, corrupting his nature and the nature of his posterity. God has no obligation to change the rules because of mans fall into sin.

God did not create the head of our race unable to keep his commandments. He did not force Adam to rebel against Him. In that rebellion our natures became twisted. God is not now forced to Change the rules of the came because our covenant head has destroyed our ability to keep God's Word.

God would be justified to send the whole race to damnation, but He has elected to save some men and bring them to salvation.

There is NO contradiction in God's demand on man. The rules were set in the beginning, and the progenitor of the race condemned many to hell, because of his rebellion. The fact that we are obliged to keep the rules God set up at the beginning, even while we have become unable to do so, does not make God's decree to be contradictory at all.

The Amazing thing is that God has determined to save so many of that fallen race to salvation. And it is God who makes us able to cling to His provided means of salvation.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[cygnusx1]

cyg,

I'm not interested in fair/unfair, I'm interested in contradition/non-contradiction.

If men are demanded by God to be saved, to not be depraved, and God upholds the power to allow an individual to be saved, how is this sensical? To me, it isn't; it is a contradiction. God is holding back one's oxygen and saying: "breathe!"

I don't accept that it is any contradiction ............ God commands men to comply with His will , men say no!

You are saying , because men need Grace to obey God then , if He witholds Grace they cannot comply .......... have you never heared of common Grace ?

Man's problem is in himself , God commands what man ought to do , and fallen man is always unwilling which is necessarily unable. For he who wills not cannot at the same time will also.

man's inability is as a result of his love of darkness over and against light.

If you say to a sick person , stop being sick , he cannot will it , he can pray for it , he may use medicines , but he cannot will it ..... all help is outside himself.

So it is with the sinner , all help is outside himself , he is sick , he cannot heal himself , and his sickness is something he wants to keep .

God's command is much more than a simple command it is exposure!

btw , how does the Law handle cases of crime with drug use as an excuse ?

''Please your honour I couldn't help mudering that guy , I was all drugged up , and I am not responsible for my behaviour"

"but you shouldn't have been all drugged up , I am not interested in any excuses , in fact your excuses make you MORE blameworthy , not less"

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

The passages quoted specify value judgments -- i.e. "is this good, bad, just?" as it relates to God's action, particularly God's election from the Calvinistic viewpoint. I'm not interested in value judgements, but contradictions. It simply makes no sense for God to ask a man to do something he cannot do. Anything contradictory is something non-existent -- there are no square-circles, for instance; with this in mind, God cannot do a contradiction, cannot punish men for doing something they could not but help to do. It would not be called a punishment in this case -- punishment occurs upon the not-doing of something obligated, or the doing of something forbidden. Man is not doing these things; his sinful nature is; the man is simply the bullet being shot from the gun; it is the nature that is continually pulling the trigger. To claim otherwise makes you a non-calvinist from the aspect of total depravity.

Hello again Received,

I think you are mistaken. I think Paul expected the Romans, like you, to consider what he was saying to be a contradiction. This is why he asks for them "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" THey saw contradiction in the fact that God finds fault with those who do evil or are not redeemed because it is not in His will to do so for them.

There is no contradiction in the fact that man is still a morally responsible agent even though, the actions of his Covenant head has made him unable to perform what he is morally responsible to do.

Man fell into sin on his own and God is using all things to accomplish what He had determined to accomplish before the creation of the world.

Every moment of every day there tens of billions of possible contingencies. God directs all of them to do His will and accomplish His predetermined ends.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Received]

The rules were set in the beginning, and the progenitor of the race condemned many to hell, because of his rebellion.

So: one man rebels, the eternity of individuals who come into existence in a depravity they did not ask for nor can free themselves from are responsible for this one man's act?

Does one's acceptance of Calvinistic doctrine depend on one's level of tolerance in accepting this statement? Perhaps. Can you at least see my concern?

I think you are mistaken. I think Paul expected the Romans, like you, to consider what he was saying to be a contradiction.

By no means. Paul was speaking of predestination; there is no contradiction in this, because this is a single premise.

There is no contradiction in the fact that man is still a morally responsible agent even though, the actions of his Covenant head has made him unable to perform what he is morally responsible to do.

Gah, but I consider that a contradiction. Would you like to use the same logic involved and take a poll?

"There is no contradiction in the fact that Billy is still morally responsible even though Rob, who existed before him, has made him unable to perform what he is morally responsible to do."

The contradiction is actualized according to two specific concepts here: responsible, and unable. The philosophical, psychological, and overall universal understanding of responsibility entails an able -- the very word itself implies it: response/able -- able to respond. One cannot be unable to respond and be responsible; and if one is unable to respond ("responseunable"), then one cannot be responsible, it is not his fault, it is due to situations or things beyond his control. This is just terminology.

Man fell into sin on his own and God is using all things to accomplish what He had determined to accomplish before the creation of the world.

Now we are getting to the heart of the disagreement. Man did not lose his perfection, because he was born in imperfection; to declare that one is not congenitally depraved is heresy, according to the traditional opinion. Now, when the bible claims that "all fell in Adam" it means precisely that all man's inherent depravity is a result of Adam's act, for all men being born after Adam must necessarily be born in imperfection -- at least according to the non-Calvinist stance. Why? Because to claim that all men were present is a claim that necessarily entails the fact that men existed before they existed, which is a contradiction, or that their "souls" existed with Adam, which is paganistic heresy. Please note that I'm not attempting to condemn, I am only analyzing.

Every moment of every day there tens of billions of possible contingencies. God directs all of them to do His will and accomplish His predetermined ends.

My friend, this too is an inherent contradiction by virtue of definitions. Contingencies are things that could not be otherwise, or things that are neither necessary nor impossible: possible. But if something is directed and predetermined, it cannot be a contingency, and therefore cannot not be otherwise, cannot be possible and therefore free, for freedom is precisely possibility to the subject.

 

[Received]

I don't accept that it is any contradiction ............ God commands men to comply with His will , men say no!

But why do they say no? The external is not sufficient, we must delve deeper. Do they say no because:

They are depraved and can only be depraved without God's help? Then, of course, their "no" is not of their choosing, for they are determined to be in a state of depravity where "no" is a natural reaction. In order for them to say "yes" they must already have faith, according to the Calvinist, and this faith comes only from God. Thus, to demand the person who by his own nature cannot but help saying "no" to say yes is to demand something impossible, and therefore is something contradictory.

btw , how does the Law handle cases of crime with drug use as an excuse ?

''Please your honour I couldn't help mudering that guy , I was all drugged up , and I am not responsible for my behaviour"

"but you shouldn't have been all drugged up , I am not interested in any excuses , in fact your excuses make you MORE blameworthy , not less"

This depends on how the drug-use came about. To make an example that can be considered analogous:

Consider that the man was born with an addiction to drugs, and this addiction was so strong that he could not free himself of it in his own power; the only thing that could save him was outside help that forced itself into the man's life in order to bring about his salvation. Would you therefore blame this man for being "high" or "tweaked" all the time? Certainly not. Why? Because he did not ask for this addiction. Similarly, would you blame a man who has said "no" to God from a depravity that is congenital, since his birth, that he could not be saved from by his own power? I would just as emphatically say no.

 

[cygnusx1]

But why do they say no? The external is not sufficient, we must delve deeper. Do they say no because:

They are depraved and can only be depraved without God's help? Then, of course, their "no" is not of their choosing, for they are determined to be in a state of depravity where "no" is a natural reaction. In order for them to say "yes" they must already have faith, according to the Calvinist, and this faith comes only from God. Thus, to demand the person who by his own nature cannot but help saying "no" to say yes is to demand something impossible, and therefore is something contradictory.



This depends on how the drug-use came about. To make an example that can be considered analogous:

Consider that the man was born with an addiction to drugs, and this addiction was so strong that he could not free himself of it in his own power; the only thing that could save him was outside help that forced itself into the man's life in order to bring about his salvation. Would you therefore blame this man for being "high" or "tweaked" all the time? Certainly not. Why? Because he did not ask for this addiction. Similarly, would you blame a man who has said "no" to God from a depravity that is congenital, since his birth, that he could not be saved from by his own power? I would just as emphatically say no.

but suppose that man is viewed as one whole entity under the name of one man. Adam
Suppose that all men are placed at the scene of the first crime , I know you deny it , but scripture affirms it (Romans 5)
then all men acted as one , they in their head , acted in disobedience that would be disastrous for their specie .

And this is not an isolated case .......... suppose that analogous to that case there is another man who is the head of his offspring , His actions are classed by God as one and the same ....... those in the second Adam are at the scene of Redemption , the cross , and also at the scene of the Resurrection and Ascension ....... they are NOW all seated in the heavenlies , their life is hidden , you cannot see it .


those who deny Federalism . deny the cause of any infant dying.
For it is plain that infants do die , and that it is not related to their sin , they haven't sinned ........ except as viewed as one man :Adam.

as regarding blame , the case is complex.

Mankind are already condemned , they are awaiting trial , but truly the case is certain , mankind is already condemned.
This condemnation is due to the sin of One man , Adam.
What then can man do ?
He can do nothing to save himself , ''Salvation is of The Lord'' , "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy"
He can add to his condemnation , by sinning daily.
He can love sin , and prefer it to Holiness.
He can love human reason and despise God's wisdom.
He can commit murder in his heart.
He can resist the Holy Spirit .
He can outrage the Spirit of Grace.
He can grieve The Holy Spirit.

what he cannot do is act spiritually , he may repent , but even his repentance will either be Spiritual and lasting = a gift from God. Or his repentance will not last , Esau/Judas

 

[Received]

but suppose that man is viewed as one whole entity under the name of one man. Adam
Suppose that all men are placed at the scene of the first crime , I know you deny it , but scripture affirms it (Romans 5)
then all men acted as one , they in their head , acted in disobedience that would be disastrous for their specie .

I'm sorry, cygnus, but psychically presuming that a person is denying something, and that this something is "clearly taught in scripture" is not very nice.

Do you understand what this makes scripture mean? It means that all men existed before they existed -- a contradiction; or that we all really exist at all times through our souls or what have you, and we existed with Adam, were with Adam, and voluntarily consented to doing what he did. Really, do you think that everyone would agree on that specific act? The absurdities keep mounting, and the heresies also aren't too far off.

So, we all exist in our souls before we are "born" -- fuse with physical bodies -- and thus all men, who somehow all agreed on something -- all infinity billion of them, who never agree on anything -- involving a rebellion against God. I reject this.

those who deny Federalism . deny the cause of any infant dying.
For it is plain that infants do die , and that it is not related to their sin , they haven't sinned ........ except as viewed as one man :Adam.

My friend -- and I mean the term very truly --, this is toeing the line of the perverse. A baby is born and dies, and the reason it dies is the fault of a man previous -- or, that it has somehow psychically existed without its body and was there with Adam, and so on with the heterodox absurdity.

Mankind are already condemned , they are awaiting trial , but truly the case is certain , mankind is already condemned.
This condemnation is due to the sin of One man , Adam.

Sort of like Andy Dufresne? He is condemned for something he didn't do.

Brother, you can't call an injustice -- a contradiction also at that -- an act of justice and blindly put the stamp: and-whatever-God-does-is-just. This is from Satan. There are better views you can hold.

Take it easy.

John

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm sorry, cygnus, but psychically presuming that a person is denying something, and that this something is "clearly taught in scripture" is not very nice.

hey received I don't have psychic powers .....

2. I consider it heresy that man has a pre-existing soul that somehow conspired with Adam to sin, and therefore all men, working with Adam, are responsible for Adam's sin. I also consider it unjust to claim that Adam was the "spokesperson" for all mankind, considering how people did not choose him, in not being alive; and you still have the point that these theories are nowhere in scripture. received

1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace 2 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, 4 and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us. 6 For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. 3 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. 9 How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. 10 Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12 4 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned 5 -- 13 for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. 14 But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come. 15 But the gift is not like the transgression. For if by that one person's transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. 16 And the gift is not like the result of the one person's sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. 17 For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. 18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. 19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. 20 The law entered in 6 so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, 21 7 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans6.htm

4 [12-21] Paul reflects on the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-13) in the light of the redemptive mystery of Christ. Sin, as used in the singular by Paul, refers to the dreadful power that has gripped humanity, which is now in revolt against the Creator and engaged in the exaltation of its own desires and interests. But no one has a right to say, "Adam made me do it," for all are culpable (Romans 5:12): Gentiles under the demands of the law written in their hearts (Romans 2:14-15), and Jews under the Mosaic covenant. Through the Old Testament law, the sinfulness of humanity that was operative from the beginning (Romans 5:13) found further stimulation, with the result that sins were generated in even greater abundance. According to Romans 5:15-21, God's act in Christ is in total contrast to the disastrous effects of the virus of sin that invaded humanity through Adam's crime.

5 [12] Inasmuch as all sinned: others translate "because all sinned," and understand v 13 as a parenthetical remark. Unlike Wisdom 2:24, Paul does not ascribe the entry of death to the devil.

6 [12-20] The law entered in: sin had made its entrance (12); now the law comes in alongside sin. See the notes on Romans 1:18-32; 5:12- 21. Where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more: Paul declares that grace outmatches the productivity of sin.

7 [21] Where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more: Paul declares that grace outmatches the productivity of sin.

Do you understand what this makes scripture mean? It means that all men existed before they existed -- a contradiction; or that we all really exist at all times through our souls or what have you, and we existed with Adam, were with Adam, and voluntarily consented to doing what he did. Really, do you think that everyone would agree on that specific act? The absurdities keep mounting, and the heresies also aren't too far off.

we did have a subsistance prior to our existence in these bodies.
man was created as a unity , women came from man , one man , and all their offspring . So yes , there is an existence , a subsistance prior to our being physically born , we were in Adam . Romans 5
Have you never read that Levi paid Tythes to Melchizadek being in the loins of Abraham.
Also is it not written that the Elect were Blessed with Grace in Christ before this world was formed.

So, we all exist in our souls before we are "born" -- fuse with physical bodies -- and thus all men, who somehow all agreed on something -- all infinity billion of them, who never agree on anything -- involving a rebellion against God. I reject this.

Of course you do.

My friend -- and I mean the term very truly --, this is toeing the line of the perverse. A baby is born and dies, and the reason it dies is the fault of a man previous -- or, that it has somehow psychically existed without its body and was there with Adam, and so on with the heterodox absurdity.

and so infants die because ............... ?

Sort of like Andy Dufresne? He is condemned for something he didn't do.

very different , instead of seeing things limited to time and space , maybe , step outside of time and space , try that ....... see all things from God's perspective.

Cygnus

 

[Received]

cygnus,

There is no reason to necesssarily conclude that the passage from Romans 5:12 speaks of the sin that all men committed in Adam. That is why the word "one" is used qualifying so often the work of the man Adam in the remaining passages, implying that it is Adam's fault that sin, and death, was brought into the world. Read a few verses down and you read the sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam. Well, there you have the full idea. Men are sinners from birth by virtue of their sinful nature, but don't have the capacity to sin until innocence is lost. Why else do you think that Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God belonging to children -- because they were miserable, depraved sinners? Why else do you think Paul spoke of, in the latter half of Romans 7, the sin that worked contrary to his intentions and desires, that ultimately made him conclude that it is the sin within him that is doing the evil and not always him? Well, it sure seems there is a sinful power that exists, and it sure seems logical to conclude that it is possible that this sinful power can be spread to all men, by virtue of the sin of Adam.

"But, you just don't get it; you have to believe in heresy in order to accept orthodoxy."

Do you remember the passage in Jeremiah that spoke of God knowing him since he was in the womb? Well, why didn't he say "since you were illin' with Adam and doing naughty things" or something of that nature? It sure would have made sense with your view.

Regarding Levi and tithes -- yes?

Regarding the elect and grace; I believe the passage speaks of being predestined to grace before the forming of the world, or something or other approximate to it. There is a difference. What about loving a person before the forming of the world? Why, that can work too, if you have an omniscience capacity that allows you to see the future.

Infants die because their biological capacities cessate. Jesus revealed rather clearly in Luke 13:1-5 that concluding that bad fortune happens because of sinfulness is not a conclusion to make; and Job -- remember Job.

 

[BBAS 64]

Jesus said Repent and believe in the Gospel.
As many as RECEIVED Him He gave them the right to become children of God.
Jesus said Oh Jerusalem, how I have wanted to gather you.... but you were not willing.

And we have examples of this, some recieved some rejected. Romans says they have a conscience. So though man is enslaved to sin, they have a choice to whether or not they yeild to sin or resist. Some listen to their conscience, some don't. This is why in the end, they will be judged according to THEIR works.

Jesus said, unless you repent, you'll will perish. This is a command. God commands everyone to repent. For God to command someone to do something that they are unable to do, or something that's totally up to Him doesn't make sense. That's just my thoughts, I hope it's ok to speak whats on my heart.

Good Day, SoaringEagle

You have misquoted scripture and thus mis applied it.

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Jerusalem was not the subject of the "gathering" it was her children.

You seem to equate a conscience with a choice, if conscience is "defiled" then the choices based upon that are.... good .


*** 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

Slaves make choices.. interesting concept. If you are inslaved to sin then sin is what you will always do.

Joh 8:36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Only "if" the son sets you free you are free indeed, not may be, not could, not hope fully... But you shall be FREE.

"Unless you repent" is a command, how is that?

I see it if you do not do "X" then "Y" is the result.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Godzchild]

Slaves make choices.. interesting concept. If you are inslaved to sin then sin is what you will always do.

One has the ability to want to be saved from sin though. One has the ability to hear the gospel...Jesus has the ability to 'dumb down' the gospel via parables so that those who find it hard to understand and perceive spiritual things can hear the things that Jesus preach. One then has the ability to recognise that they are dying in their sinful state and are enslaved and need help - they also have the ability to call out the name of the Lord to save them from this sinful state IF THEY WANT TO. The Lord then takes them out of that sinful state and imputes righeousness. He also heals them and enlightens them to spiritual matters (no more parables). Because up until that point, they were unable to descern spiritual matters or the mystery of the kingdom of God...hence why God spoke in parables!

 

[BBAS 64]

One has the ability to want to be saved from sin though. One has the ability to hear the gospel...Jesus has the ability to 'dumb down' the gospel via parables so that those who find it hard to understand and perceive spiritual things can hear the things that Jesus preach. One then has the ability to recognise that they are dying in their sinful state and are enslaved and need help - they also have the ability to call out the name of the Lord to save them from this sinful state IF THEY WANT TO. The Lord then takes them out of that sinful state and imputes righeousness. He also heals them and enlightens them to spiritual matters (no more parables). Because up until that point, they were unable to descern spiritual matters or the mystery of the kingdom of God...hence why God spoke in parables!

Good Day, Godzchild

Jesus has the abilty in your view to dumb down the parables, let me accept that for sake of my question. His he obligated to do so in all cases?


Those who hear verses those who are unable "can not hear":

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

Joh 8:45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.

Joh 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Those who hear are "of God", those who are not "of God" hear not. This is plain teaching of Scripture. There are clearly 2 types of people some able some other not able.

The sheep hear the voice of the shepard, those who are not his sheep hear him not.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[frumanchu]

OK, I'm back...

Nevertheless, the essence of the problem lies with the word "demand"; I would say that "demand" implies an ought; you would seem to deny this. I would ask you to consider this in your reply, rather than essentially vainly focusing on information that I'm interested in, but, for the sake of expediency, would like to keep according to the question of the OP.

Actually I readily affirm that a command (I'm using the term interchangeably with "demand" at this point) implies an ought. What I am rejecting is the next step of "ought implies can." As I said before it is not an question of natural ability but of moral ability. It's not that he cannot but that he will not. Naturally speaking, unregenerate man has the capacity to make the choice he ought. A choice is the decision to select one thing over another, and unregenerate men do this a thousand times a day.

 

[Received]

Ok, so perhaps it would be better to say: an ought does not imply a will, though it does imply a can. Because, in order for rebellion to come about, there must be something freely rebelled against, a capacity for freedom. If there is no potentiality for freedom, there is predestination, a determinism from a beginning, and this negates a can -- for a can implies freedom. With this in mind, if you were to claim otherwise (that a can does not imply freedom) it doesn't matter if you claim that "man" is in the equation; he doesn't choose what he does, for it is determined from the beginning, by virtue of the greatest desire dictating his choice. This I still consider a major difficulty in the metaphysics of Edwards -- if man's greatest desire dictates his choice, this leads to an infinite regress: the desire prior to the "choice" is dictated by a preceding desire, and another, until -- you eventually reach the prime mover, who established such a situation. God.

But this is really irrelevant.

You say that unregenerate man has the capacity to -- in this context repent, obviously. And this potentiality for repentance implies willed faith. Which seems contradictory to the reformed standing that man cannot will himself out of faith. So, are you claiming that man can will himself out of faith?

 

[Godzchild]

Good Day, Godzchild

Jesus has the abilty in your view to dumb down the parables, let me accept that for sake of my question. His he obligated to do so in all cases?


Those who hear verses those who are unable "can not hear":

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

Joh 8:45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.

Joh 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Those who hear are "of God", those who are not "of God" hear not. This is plain teaching of Scripture. There are clearly 2 types of people some able some other not able.

The sheep hear the voice of the shepard, those who are not his sheep hear him not.

Peace to u,

Bill

He didn't dumb down parables - the parables are the dumbing down. They can hear - they have ears. The parables are put in ways they understand using analogies in physical life (not spiritual).

 

[BBAS 64]

He didn't dumb down parables - the parables are the dumbing down. They can hear - they have ears. The parables are put in ways they understand using analogies in physical life (not spiritual).

Good Day, Godzchild

Seems Jesus had another view of the parables:
Mat 13:9 He who has ears, let him hear."

Mat 13:10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"

Mat 13:11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Mat 13:12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Mat 13:14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.'

Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.

Just because they have ears, yet they do not hear. The hearing has not been given uto them. Thoses who are "of God" they hear.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Imblessed]

exactly Bill!

When I understood that, a whole lot changed for me......

 

[SoaringEagle]

I can’t help but wonder how God takes pleasure in people who are, against their wills, supposedly regenerated by God’s irresistible grace. They are really nothing more than robots. If they love Him, it is only because they had no choice but to love Him, because they would have preferred to continue hating Him.According to calvinists, that is. This means, of course, that they really don’t love Him, because love is predicated upon choice. Their warm feelings toward Him are pre-programmed; thus true love is impossible.

Here is the funny part, the joke. I encourage everyone to take a puppet made from a sock, put it on your hand, have it turn and look at him, and then have it say, “I love you!”

Does that give you the same feeling as when his spouse or child or loved one says those words? And why not? Because free will has been eliminated. The puppet is only saying what you are making him say.

 

[SoaringEagle]

I also can’t help but wonder about the validity of calvies belief that unregenerate man will always use his freedom to resist God. Imagine a man who is an adulterer. His God-given conscience condemns him continually (see Rom. 2:15), but he continues in his adulterous relationship. Thus he is using his freedom to resist God, which calvies say is all he can or will ever do since he is totally depraved. But imagine that he finally breaks off his adulterous relationship due to guilt. Now can it still be said that he has only used his freedom to resist God? No, it cannot. He used his freedom to repent of adultery, and yielded to his God-given conscience. If he can use his freedom to do that, why can’t he, with the help of the Holy Spirit, repent of a lifestyle of rebellion and humble himself before God?

How could someone who has the free choice to remain unrepentant possibly not have the freedom to choose to repent? How could a person have the capacity to choose to become more evil but not have the capacity to choose to become less evil? Merely by choosing to not become more evil is by default, a choice for good. If we can use our freedom to resist God but can’t use it to yield to God, we really have no freedom at all. We’re robots, programmed to do evil, having no freedom. It is utterly impossible to have freedom to resist God if one doesn’t have freedom to yield to God. Calvin himself certainly admitted this fact, writing in his Institutes,

“Nothing is more absurd than to think anything at all is done but by the ordination of God….Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass, but what was ordained by Him….The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which He has fore-ordained” (Cal. Inst., book 1, chapter 16, sect. 3).​

At least Calvin was consistent in this respect. He admitted (unlike some modern Calvinists) that there really was no room for free will in this theology. If depraved man can do nothing other than sin, then he has as much free will as a bullet shot from a gun.

Calvinists clearly add to what Scripture states regarding humanity’s depravity and God’s grace. Although unregenerate people are indeed, “dead in [their] trespasses and sins,” hundreds (if not thousands) of scriptures clearly state or imply that spiritually dead people can choose to humble themselves and repent, especially while they are under the influence of the gracious drawing of God’s Spirit. God’s drawing, however, never forces anyone to repent, nor does it change anyone’s will apart from the consent of his heart.

Although Scripture repeatedly decries the sinful state of humanity, at the same time it calls on all people to repent; thus it is obvious that all spiritually dead people still have the capacity to repent. For example, Paul publicly proclaimed, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). If Paul believed that people were so depraved that they had no capacity to repent, he would not have said that God was calling all people everywhere to repent, unless he was a deceiver. Moreover, if it were impossible for spiritually dead people to repent, God would be unrighteous to expect all of them to do what they are incapable of doing and then hold them guilty for not doing it.

Like Paul, John the Baptist, Jesus, and all the other apostles preached the gospel, calling on all people to repent (see Matt.3:2; 4:17; 11:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4: 2 Pet. 3:9). Several times in the book of Revelation, John is amazed that unregenerate people don’t repent while suffering God’s judgments (see Rev. 9:20-21; 16:9, 11). Jesus pronounced woe upon all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they didn’t repent, obviously indicating He believed they had the capacity to repent (see Matt. 11:21). He also declared that the wicked people of Tyre and Sidon, who didn’t repent, would have repented if they had seen miracles like the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida had seen! In both cases, Jesus believed that those who didn’t repent had the capacity to repent and should have repented, in contrast to Calvinists, who believe unregenerate people have no capacity to repent outside of God changing their wills and forcing them to repent (which He only does for some). Thus, Calvinism portrays Jesus as a liar and a deceiver, because Jesus gave all indication that people could do what He knew full well they couldn’t do. This also makes God the Father a liar, as Jesus only spoke His words (see John 12:49).

Jesus expected everyone of His generation to repent, because He stated that the men of Nineveh, who repented at Jonah’s preaching, would rightfully condemn His generation for not repenting. Again, if they had no capacity to repent, He would not have condemned them, as that would make God unrighteous. Moreover, what right would the repentant people of Nineveh have to condemn Jesus’ unrepentant generation? The people of Jesus’ generation could rightly say, “How can you, who by God’s sovereign decree could do nothing other than repent, condemn us, who by God’s sovereign decree could do nothing other than remain unrepentant?”

Thus, the Calvinist, who believes God condemns people for not doing what they are incapable of doing, makes God grossly unjust. God is thus somewhat equivalent to the parent who spanks his baby for not walking, but He is a million times worse. Why? Because to the Calvinist, God tortures people eternally in hell for not doing what they were absolutely incapable of doing.

The Calvinist also makes God ultimately responsible for all the evil in the world. Why? Because God could put an end to all evil by influencing everyone with His irresistible grace, but He sovereignly chooses not to, thus evil remains only because of God’s sovereign choice. Depraved man can supposedly do nothing but sin unless God keeps him from it by choosing to show him His irresistible grace, so the ultimate reason for evil is because God doesn’t keep evil people from sinning.

Calvinists often decry the position of non-Calvinists, accusing them of making man responsible for his own salvation (which is a false accusation). Yet Calvinists make God responsible for the damnation of billions! Clearly, the God of Calvinism hates people even before they are born, when He determines that their eternal fate will be incarceration and agony in hell. If God is solely responsible for the salvation of certain people, He is also solely responsible for the damnation of everyone else, because only He could have rescued them from their fate, but He decided not to do so. And that decision was not predicated on God’s inability to stop sin, but His unwillingness to stop it. Thus God wills sin in select people’s lives. To the Calvinist, man doesn’t stop sinning because he has no choice, but because God, who can stop sin, chooses not to! God is thus even more “totally depraved” than we are!

Calvinists should not object to this point, because Calvin himself believed that Adam fell, not because Adam chose by his own free will to sin, but because God ordained his fall:

God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also ordained that he should….I confess it is a horrible decree; yet no one can deny but God foreknew Adam’s fall, and therefore foreknew it, because he had ordained it so by his own decree (Cal. Inst., b. 3, c. 23, sec. 7).​

The Calvinist also portrays God as a very confused God who is actually working against Himself, hating sin and evil, yet promoting the very thing He hates by creating people who have no capacity but to do evil and who are predestined to never change. Moreover, the Calvinist’s God is a hypocrite, as He practices sins that He condemns in others, such as deception and showing partiality.

In summary, the Calvinist makes God a lying, deceiving, bigoted, malicious, unjust, confused hypocrite who is responsible for the world’s evil and who creates people for the expressed purpose of torturing them forever. If any man did the things Calvinists say God does, every person on the earth would rightly consider that man worthy of immediate execution, and certainly not worthy to be worshiped. Who is really robbing God of glory? Is it the non-Calvinist who says that man must yield to God’s Spirit using his God-given free will in order to be saved, or is it the Calvinist, who turns God into a monster?

Unlike the Calvinist who (whether he admits it or not) places the responsibility on God for people’s lack of repentance, Jesus placed the blame on the unrepentant people themselves. He said as He wept over Jerusalem,

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

Notice that Jesus loved them all and wanted them all to repent, but they refused to yield to His love. The Calvinist, however, makes Jesus say, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her, proving that you are totally depraved. I never wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, thus I chose not to grant you My irresistible grace, and I predestined you to eternal damnation. I’m weeping now, not for you, because I’ve hated you from the beginning. Rather, I’m weeping for no good reason. Perhaps I’m weeping for Myself, an unrighteous hypocrite, because I expect people to do what they can’t do and I command people to do what I don’t practice Myself.” The Calvinist, who claims he is zealous for God’s glory, makes God into an immoral, repugnant monster.

Jesus also rebuked the religious Jews, saying, “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life” (John 5:39-40, emphasis added). Clearly, Jesus believed that people had the capacity to choose to repent or not. This cannot be denied by any honest reader of Scripture.

Have fun with this one. SoaringEagle