did each man ever had the ability? - no! - how?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Aki, Mar 3, 2003.

  1. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    to the calvinists, since each man was imputed of the sin of Adam, each man got depraved, and according to how you see depravity, it comes with total inability.

    man therefore did not choose to be unable to respond to God's call come the general call. how? by God's design of federal headship of Adam affecting all his progeny and with the imputation of the original sin.

    and though men commit their own sins does not actually add to their depravity, for depravity is absolute and complete since the imputed sin. who therefore caused man's depravity (and inablity for that matter)?

    you say God gives everyone a general call, yet God designed an imputation of the first sin to everyone that got everyone unable to respond to Him.

    you keep on saying that man is a sinner and therefore unable to respond to God. but you lack the focus in the discussion that it is the imputed sin of Adam, that God designed, that got everyone unable to respond to God upon the general call.

    you say each man is given the chance to be saved with the general call, but you are too quiet in saying that it is the imputed sin, where no man was given any choice, that got each one unable to respond to that general call.

    and so now, God makes a design of imputation of the first sin which will get everyone unable to respond to Him and then at the judgement say that He has offered a general call to His non-elect yet they did not took heed? is that it?

    [ March 03, 2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Aki ]
     
  2. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    You make it seem as though God would be unjust if he did not offer man salvation?

    He's not.

    Most calvinist do not see salvation as a chance. (at least I don't) I see it as a condition. If someone is drowning in a pool, they do not offer them the opportunity to be saved, they jump in and save them. That person, post pulled from the pool is "saved". That is not a choice it is a condition.
     
  3. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sturgman,

    With all due respect, you ignored Aki's whole point. He was speaking about the contradiction of Calvinism teaching that claims mankind is rightly responsible for our sin when in reality we have an adopted sin nature imposed upon us by God's design of federal headship and not our own choice to sin.

    If we are sinful because of our choices and our sin, yes we should be held responsible and God in no way would be required to offer salvation.

    But in light of the fact that he does offer salvation to all man, the implication of their ability to respond is implied, yet according to you they do not have that ability once again because of God's design of federal headship, thus leaving God as a deceiver of man.
     
  4. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    to sturgman:

    let's interpret this analogy with the theology now. the one drowning is man. but then how did he got into the pool and be in danger of drowning? how did he got that condition? with one's committed sin? i don't think so, for even before one commits his own sin he is already dead, or drowning.

    so how? well, by the imputation of the first sin to everyone, which was in no way a choice of anyone! that is, none of us chose to be drowned! we were there because we were imputed of the first sin! and who designed sin to be imputed? God!

    you started your condition with men drowning. but then an issue beforehand is worthy of noting, which you did not get into: how did each man got drowning, that even before anybody disobeys he is already in the pool, due to a sin which he did not do, but was simply imputed to each one.

    so that even if one does not commit a single sin all his life he is still in the pool!

    to Brother Bill:
    i like your response [​IMG]
     
  5. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where were you when Adam sinned? You might say no where, but in all actuallity you were in adam. You were in the loins of Adam. What should have happened to Adam? He should have died. And that would mean you would have died along with Adam. Your interpretation leads us to believe that God is wrong if he did that. That is not true. He let Adam live. Adam a sinner and Eve a sinner produced offspring, sinners. They produced more sinners and so forth. For God to save one is an act of grace, but he saved a multitude, that is ludicris grace.

    The diiference is you see salvation as a chance. I see it as a condition. That is what I was pointing out earlier, not your question of who pushed him in the pool. My disagreement lies far before that analogy. I don't see that salvation is a chance or a lottery, or an opportunity. I see it as a condition. My son was born into this world because his mother and I decided, not because he wanted to live. Bith, both physical and spiritual is accomplished by the love of the father, not the willingness of the son.

    So if your wondering why I am not answering your question, it is because to me it is not a question. Because God does not have to account for those people who are in Hell. He must only account for those sinners in Heaven. He has written an entire book on it.
     
  6. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is an article which explains original sin from the calvinist viewpoint . I think it specifically answers some of your questions.

    BTW, what you are asking about here is original sin, not imputed sin.

    Imputed sin means that the sin of Adam in the garden is imputed to the rest of the human race, and we are counted guilty for it. Imputed sin deals with the legal aspect of things--what we are reckoned or counted as.

    Original sin deals with the actual condition we are born in--not just counted as sinners but actually sinners. This comes to us not through imputation, but as the natural result of being descendents of fallen people. Creation is set up so that we reproduce our own kind. Fallen human beings reproduce more fallen human beings. Unclean people produce more unclean people.

    This is why Calvinists say that it is not God who is to blame for our sinful natures, or for the inability that arises from them--because the estrangement we are born with is simply the consequence of being a descendent of fallen Adam.
     
  7. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    hi russell [​IMG]

    i believe in the same concept, but encountered the meaning with your terminology only now. it's a good reading though. anyways, with Adam, the sin nature is passed to all that are in him (this is the original sin to you). With God, he imputed Adam's sin to everyone, this is also the imputed sin to you. combined, men are therefore born dead!(quite an ironic statement [​IMG] ).

    the way i see it, it is story beyond this that we go separate ways, you towards TULIP and i towards another.

    i have a question for you though. with the concept of the original and imputed sin in your belief, do you see a born child as responsible for his own deravity? or was he born to that condition without choice? that he never actually had the ability to choose for God in the first place?

    another question: what was the purpose of God's imputing of Adam's sin to everyone, making everyone unable to respond to God come His general call as you put it?

    lastly, is a non-elect to be blamed for his condemnation when in fact he did nothing for that condition to happen to him, but was rather affected by both God's imputation of sin and Adam's transmission of sin nature?
     
  8. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    but then again, sturgman, we should be clear on how did each one got into the pool? when a child is born he is already in that pool! are we to blame the child, knowing he has not yet committed his own sin? when God condemns the non-elect, what will be God's basis for judging that person? i know the person committed his own sins, but then again before those personal sins he is already depraved, and it is for another reason!

    by the way, the scriptures answered my question.

    also it is vital that you answer how did each man got to the pool. more so, if God's imputation of Adam's sin caused man to be in that pool, what was God's purpose for such imputation? you need to clear this up for this challenges the whole point of the TULIP theology.

    [ March 04, 2003, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]
     
  9. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki,

    I do intend to try to answer your questions, but I have had a really busy and exhausting and stressful day, and answering your questions will require a bit of time and thought on my part and I'm just not up to it right now.
     
  10. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki,

    I am going to start with your middle question:

    First, let me explain that I don't think it is imputed sin (or guilt) that makes people unable to respond to God. It is original sin that makes us unable to respond, and original sin is not imputed, but inherited. The depravity of Adam is passed down from generation to generation, not by imputation, but by the natural process of procreation. Corrupt people produce corrupt children. So as I see it, imputed sin is not the cause of our sin nature.

    Imputed sin means that Adam represented us in some way in the Garden of Eden. When Adam did his first sin, that first sin was put on our account, and we are judged guilty of it, so we are born under condemnation because that first sin of Adam is on our sin account.

    What was the purpose of God imputing Adam's guilt to us? Well, I think God set up a representative system, and the same system that has Adam representing us in that first sin, and that sin being put on our account, allows for Christ to represent us in his obedience, and His obedience can be put to our account. Without the representative system, in which something our representative does can be credited (or imputed) to us, we would be in big trouble, because we could never be perfectly righteous. We NEED for Christ to represent us.

    Well, that's what the word "imputation" means-- to lay the blame or responsibility or credit on someone. But remember, it's under the same system by which we are credited with what Adam did that we can be credited with what Christ did. With the bad comes the good. Without the bad, there would be no good.

    Well, he was born to that condition as a natural consequence of Adam and Eve becoming sinful. (Remember, depravity is not imputed, but inherited.) Our depravity is not caused by God (God created men upright), but it is Adam and Eve who got that nasty ball rolling. We are born just like our parents, and their parents before them, and their parents before them--estranged from God and obstinately opposed to Him. Our natural inability to choose God is a consequence of that obstinate opposition we are born to. We can't choose God because our hostility to God is too entrenched within us--and that entrenched hostility is inherited from our forefathers.

    To summerise: The system works the same for sin as it does for righteousness, but in opposite directions.

    Adam sinned as the representative for all who are in him, and and all those who he represents have his sin (or guilt) imputed to them. All Adam's descendents (by physical birth) inherit a sinful nature, and as a result begin to disobey.

    Christ (the second Adam), obeyed as the representative for all who are in Him, and all those who he represents have His righteousness (or blamelessness) imputed to them. All His descendents (by spiritual birth) inherit a new nature, and as a result begin to obey.

    That's probably clear as mud, but I tried..... ;)
     
  11. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    russell55,

    first, death is no wage for the nature to sin! sin has it. thus, it is the sin that God imputed to each man that got each one spiritually dead or depraved.

    second, there is still a question left standing. come judgement, how would God tell the non-elect of how they got depraved, and thus worthy of condemnation? who is God going to put the finger at?

    if it's to Himself, because of the imputed sin, well, that is unthinkable, except if one accepts double predestination.

    if it's to Adam, then God would be violating His justice.

    but it's definitely not to each soul because each soul was depraved without its free will, in fact, even before it produced the fruit of its sinful nature which is the first committed sin.

    in another view, is man therefore to be blamed for his own depravity? or was depravity simply accounted to him without his choice?

    is every man guilty? or was every man made guilty?

    a look at the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect as they were also imputed of the sin of Adam is easy to grasp, but then to the non-elect, are they guilty, or made guilty? and if they were made guilty, by whom? how would this affect God's justice?

    im sorry if i sound like circling around the same concept over and over. i'm trying to fully understand what you believe by asking, and while there is still questions, i just can't stop with it. [​IMG]

    [ March 05, 2003, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]
     
  12. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi sturgman; [​IMG]
    A quote from you;
    -----------------------------------------------------
    If someone is drowning in a pool, they do not offer them the opportunity to be saved, they jump in and save them.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    My reply; [​IMG]
    How you going to know they are drowning if the don't scream for help. Just like in being saved from our sins we have to ask for help from God or we won't be saved. Life gaurds are trained to respond to obvious distress. They don't just jump in if they see something that my makes them think you are drowning. If they did while they were responding in an unnecessary reaction. Someone else might really need help and they wouldn't know it. [​IMG]
    Romanbear
     
  13. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know what God is going to tell them. But they are depraved because they are born into a race that fell in Adam. They were born into a corrupt race of people, already estranged from God.

    Why?
     
  14. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki, Paul answered your questions in Romans 9, but I am sure that you won't like that answer. Read where it starts out, "then why does God still blame us?"

    Second, Who can point their finger at God? Answer, no one. God does not have to account for those going to hell. Man is going to hell. Adam and all those from Adam are sinners, therefore their natural destiny would be hell outside of the intervention of God. God must only account for those sinners in Heaven. He has written a whole book to answer that question.

    Romanbear, your claim is ridiculous. Many men drown without any screaming. That is why they put a chair next to the pool for the lifeguard to sit in. Past that, the illustration stops, so let us use scripture to prove your point of screaming before the lifeguard budges.
     
  15. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    to sturgman:

    do you mean double predestination?

    on the other hand, God sovereignly put everyone inot depravity by imputing Adam's sin to everyone. when God can simply wait for the non-elects to produce the first fruit of their sin nature - which is their first sin - and then condemn him, there will be no problem. but then again did not wait for that! He actually made each one guilty! the nature to sin itself is not God's basis for condemning man. it's fruit, which is sin, is! and then God imputed a sin to everyone. my point is, God directed the finger to Himself! herein comes the question why? and what did God do afterwards.

    to russell55:

    my reply to one of what you said is at my reply to sturgman.

    also, do you believe that each non-elect from birth until death never had the chance to choose to be depraved? that each one was born condemned? if this is so, each non-elect goes to hell not because of his/her own decision to.

    thus, is God to blame the non-elect? or is it double predestination?

    [ March 06, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Aki ]
     
  16. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said that "He (God) made each one guilty." You are wrong here. God did not make them guilty, man is guilty. God pronounces them guilty, but he does not make them guilty. Adam should have been smited in the garden and you, I and the rest of us in his loins as well. The fact that God saves some is an act of mercy and grace.

    I am not speaking of the issue of double predestination, though it does answer that as well. What I refered you to Romans 9 about is you questioned God's justice for judging those non-elect because he allowed the sin of Adam to be imputed on them. Paul answers it in Romans 9. "Then you will say to me, why does God still judge us, for who resist His will? On the contrary, who are you , Oh Man, that you should talk back to God? Or does not the potter have right over the clay?"

    You see, God does not have to account for those in Hell. We all go back to Adam, and we should have died in his loins, because we all are sinners. Adam should have died, and everything in Adam should have died, e.g. all his offspring. The only thing God must account for is those who are in Heaven. Because they are sinners, and that is the only undeserving thing that happens.
     
  17. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    sturgman:

    everybody was seminally in Adam, thus with Adam everybody was transmitted the sin nature. regarding the first sin, however, only Adam committed it. and each person became guilty of such sin because God imputed the sin to each one.

    taken, God does not have to account to everyone in Hell. but it still remains that each one was imputed Adam's sin by God. God did not simply allowed Adam's sin to be imputed. rather, God imputed it! the one God allowed, which is accrording to His design in creation, is the transmission of the sin nature to Adam's progeny.

    when God imputed Adam's sin to the non-elect, i see it as a stroke of His love to them, to give them that chance to be saved, which, however, they reject. on the other hand, you see God's imputation of Adam's sin to the non-elect as an act of sovereignty, and nothing more, as far as your reply is concerned, which leads to double predestination. i'm not asking God why he did that, and i have said why in the other thread (you can read it in his page of the thread: grace of pure sovereignty ). i'm asking what you believe was God's purpose in imputing Adam's sin even to the non-elect.
     
  18. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki,

    I think I understand now what you are saying...

    Yes, this is similar to how I see it....

    Agreed again...

    I think I pretty much agree with this too, although I know that we are mostly speculating on this. This is not really spelled out for us. If God did not impute Adam's sin to the non-elect, then He would be putting a barrier to them being saved, rather than just passing over them. Everything is set up so that the nonelect could be saved, IF THEY BELIEVED.

    (It is important that we remember that no one is sent to hell for Adam's guilt alone. Even if Adam's guilt was not imputed to us, we still have the sin nature problem, and all the sins that we commit that we add to our account. So Adam's condemnation being imputed to us does not make us worse off, but better off.)
     
  19. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Russell, don't you think "total inability" is as big of a barrier as there can possibly be, what other "barriers" would matter? In Calvinism, everything is not "set up" so that the nonelect "COULD" be saved, it's only "set up" so that the elect will be saved.

    Romans 11:32
    For God has imprisoned all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all."

    After speaking about everyone being disobedient he shows that God binds them over to disobedience so that he might have mercy on them ALL. In other words, all are disobedient (which is everyone) are also canidates for receiving mercy. All can recieve mercy, not just "the elect" as you contend.

    It doesn't say that all men were bound over to disobedience so that God will have mercy on the "chosen ones" it says so that he might have mercy on them "all" and that means "all"!

    Some of you Calvinists will argue that if I take "all" to mean "all" that I must support universalism, but that is not true. Notice the word "may" or "might" in this passage, it doesn't say God "will" have mercy on all it says he "may" or "might" which shows that there is a condition that "all" must meet in order to receive mercy. Mercy is obtained through faith (Romans 9:30).

    This mercy is applied to those who have faith, and anyone who hears the word of truth has the capasity for faith in Christ. To deny that, denies God's provision for ALL to have their imputed sin forgiven by God so as to receieve the imputed righteousness from Christ.
     
  20. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see where you are going here. When God does not save the non-elect, he is not violating their will. When He saaves the elect, He is violating their will. So do I see the fact that God does not save them an act of sovereinty? In the sence that He ordains all things, yes. In the sence that God has made them guilty, no. They are doing exactly what their natures find pleasure in.
     

Share This Page

Loading...