1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

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

  1. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, total inability is a barrier, and it is a complete barrier. But it is not a barrier that comes from anything God does. It is a barrier that comes as a natural consequence of the fall--that comes from being sons and daughters of corrupt parents. Inability originates within man and not from God.

    I agree that God putting up external barriers to people coming to Him would not change the choice of unable people, and so would not change the final outcome. But if God puts up external barriers, then He is actively working to keep people from Him and so He is active rather than passive in their damnation.

    No, everything is set up so that the nonelect could be saved IF THEY BELIEVED. The problem is that they won't believe, and that unchanging "won't believe" attitude comes, not from anything God does, but from their inherited attitude toward God.

    If things just rolled along as they are "set up", we would all forever reject God and end up forever in Hell. But God does not leave things as they are "set up" and intervenes on behalf of His elect, bringing them to faith so that they will be saved.

    The rest of your post has very little to do with the specific subject of this thread or my response to Aki.....
     
  2. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe this in one of Aki's points. It's God's decision of the headship of Adam and the imputed sin nature and the obvious decision of God, who made it where this imputed sin would make us totally unable. How can that not orginate with God?

    When did God ever sit down with us and say, "Ok, how about we do it this way, after Adam sins I will impute sin to all men seminally and that will cause them to be totally unable to respond to the calling of my Holy Spirit and the gospel message, is that ok with you?" If Calvinism is true this is obviously a decision that only God could have made.

    So, God is just trying to look busy? This still doesn't answer the question of hardening. Why deafen a man who was born deaf? This just doesn't make any sense.

    Semantics, pure semantics! "Could be" or "won't be" --what is the difference? One just makes your view sound less harsh. The fact of the matter is that only a certain number of people have been atoned for and are capable of being saved, in your view. To explain it in any other way is a purely semantical smoke screen.

    I agree, which is why he sent Christ, appointed the appostles, inspired the scripture, called preachers and evangelists, and calls all to come by His Holy Spirit. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH! Your view makes all of these things seem trivial at best because ultimately they accomplish nothing without your additional "effectual calling."

    Wrong. He intervenes on behalf of the world bringing the gospel which brings faith to those who hear so that they may be saved. (BTW, you never dealt with Romans 11:32.)

    Sorry, I didn't know you were setting the rules on what we can discuss. I'm just pointing out your inconsistancies in your replies to Aki, but if I'm getting in the way with Aki's line of arguments I will step aside.
     
  3. Aki

    Aki Member

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

    thank you for your reply.

    yes, everything is set up, if they believe. however, for you, everything was also set up for each one so that the nonelect will not have the ability to believe. and they were in that situation without any option to get there or not. nothing on you, but logically, i can't help but to take what you adhere to as double predestination! do you?


    true, all the sins we commit will add to our account. however, God did not wait for that. God did not wait for us to get ourselves guilty. rather, God, in His sovereignty, chose to put in us the first sin for us to get guilty. this, once again, imposes these questions:

    1. is each non-elect therefore to be blamed for his own condemnation , knowing that it was not their choice to have the first sin imputed to them for condemnation and that it was not their choice for them to have the inability to believe?

    2. it was nice to hear from you that Adam's sin was imputed for us to be better off. i believe that too! but how can it be better off for the non-elect seing that God has put them into subjection to His own design of transmission of sin nature and the inability to believe?
     
  4. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not setting up rules....it's just that Aki started this thread asking for answers from Calvinist perspective to a particular question about imputed guilt and I am hesitant to take it too far off that track....
     
  5. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is not double predestination because the inability to believe comes from the sin nature which comes from Adam, and not God. God did not cause people to have a sin nature, and if I am understanding what you are writing, you don't believe He did either, because you say:

    The sin nature transmitted from Adam through procreation is opposed to God--hostile toward Him. That's where the inability comes from--we can't love God because we remain hostile to Him; we can't trust God because we remain in opposition to Him. It's the evilness of the heart that we inherited from Adam that causes us to refuse to believe. Every intent of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually, and so we always continually reject.


    No, it was not their choice to have the sin nature, from which the inability comes. That sin nature came because we are born into a sinful race of people. But I don't understand why you think people can't be blamed for choices that come from their sinful hearts....
    They are better off in exactly the way you say:

    [ March 09, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]
     
  6. Aki

    Aki Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    so then it was not their choice to have the inability to choose for God.

    first, they were born with sin natures.
    second, they were imputed with the sin of Adam.
    combined they are condemned.

    in effect, they commit their own sins.
    also, they do not take heed to God's call.

    but then again it's because of things that they do not decide to be in.

    in this manner, they are not to be blamed for their condemnation. rather they are victims! is this it?
     
  7. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    "God bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." -- Rom.11:32

    God subjected the creation to frustration (Rm. 8) and He bound them over to disobedience AND His plan provided a "way" out for all men. If He did not provide a way out for ALL men, double predestination is the only option for "non-elect" he did not provide a means of salvation for.
     
  8. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki, do you think people are victims because they are born with a sin nature? Do you think they can't be blamed for their sins because they are born with a sin nature?
     
  9. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    He did provide a way out for all men...there is a means of salvation for all mankind.
     
  10. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, you don't believe that Christ atoned only for the sins of the elect?

    I've heard many Calvinist say, "God did not make salvation possible for all men, He made it certain for His elect." Do you not agree with that?

    I don't understand how you can honestly say that God provided "a way out" for the non-elect under the Calvinistic system?

    What exactly is the means of salvation for someone who can't understand or respond those means? If faith is the means, they must have a capasity for faith if it is to actually be considered a viable means, don't you think?
     
  11. Aki

    Aki Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    yes. do you think people are responsible for being transmitted the sin nature? did each man chose to have it?

    of course people are guilty for their own sins. however, they are not responsible for having the sin nature which causes them to sin, much less the inability to respond to God's call. all they do are products of what was in them since birth, which they did not desire to acquire.

    thus, whatever sin they commit, it's a product of something they did not choose to receive.

    perhaps putting it in order will help.

    1. they were transmitted the sin nature.
    2. so then they sin.
    3. they were given the general call.
    4. but then they do not respond.
    5. but they cannot respond.
    6. was it their fault they cannot respond?
    7. no, for their inability was simply transmitted to them.
    8. thus they are victims.
     
  12. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki, you have done a very good job of clearly defining the Calvinistic dilema.

    What you have explained is one of the reasons I left Calvinism. It a doctrine that gives men an excuse when Romans 1 is clear that men are without excuse. The only way they can be without excuse is if they are able to respond to the general call. Otherwise, as you have clearly shown, they are victims of God's design.
     
  13. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sturgman, you say that God violates the elects will but leaves the non-elect to follow their own natural will. This is just another way of saying the same thing. The non-elect and the elect are in a predicament because of God's design, in which he "bound all men over to disobedience." But what is His purpose in binding them over to disobedience? "So that he could have mercy on the elect." NO.

    "So that he may have mercy on them ALL."

    This little three letter word "all" stands in your way, what do you do with it?
     
  14. sturgman

    sturgman New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do I have to deal with that? Scripture does not say God must save any, much less ALL. You act as if God owes us something. I don't see that, at ALL. If God wants to create a race of people and damn them to an everlasting fire, He is right in doing so. Not because of any reason except that He is God.

    You make it seem like God must explain Himself for having intraments of wrath prepared for distruction. That is a real theodicy, and to that I will leave it with Paul, "Who are you, OH MAN, to talk back to God."
     
  15. Aki

    Aki Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    you sound as if those who recieve the second death are so condemned because God has sovereignly created them to recieve such, and that all those condemned souls are not responsible themselves of the death they recieved. instead God soveignly got them there, and that they are in no position to ask God why.

    now that's one side of double predestination. are you a double predestinarian?
     
  16. William C

    William C New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Woah there tiger. We are all asking each other to "deal" with difficult texts for other's respective systems of belief. I'm simply pointing out that this text seems to contradicts your premise. If I'm wrong, show me in the text how I am wrong and don't go overboard by expousing a fatalistic view of God that Calvin himself would turn his nose up at.

    We are not talking about what God is capable of doing, we all agree that He could do anything He wanted to. The point of our debate is not to speculate as to what God could do and still be considered "right," but instead to discover what scripture reveals that He has done. And scripture certainly doesn't reveal that "God wants to create a race of people and damn them to an everlasting fire." Only your Calvinistic system leads to that kind of thinking. In fact, scripture reveals that God's "wants" or "desires" are much more noble and loving than what you suggest.

    According to Rom. 11:32, He bound all men over to disobedience. Why? So that he might have mercy on them all. I know that God doesn't have to save anyone, but that is not the point of this discussion, the fact is that he does save people and the question we are addressing is who does He "desire" or "want" to save.

    We have determined from 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 and I would like to add Matt. 23:37 that God wants to save all men:

    "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!

    These passages conclusively show us that it was God's "desire" or his "want" to save all men. Yet, we both agree that is not accomplished. How can that be if God is truly "efficatious." The only possible answer is that God also desired that man have a choice in this matter, thus making them responsible for the final decision. Otherwise, you must say that God did not accomplish his desires and that He is not efficatious at all. You must say that He failed to accomplish what He desired to accomplish in the plan of redemption.

    In Romans 11:32 we can see that God shows mercy to all men; yet we also know that not all men receive mercy; therefore, there must be something that keeps them from receiving it. Is it God's desire that keeps them from receiving mercy? No, we know that God desires that all are saved. So, it must be man's desire that keeps him from receiving mercy. Therefore the only thing that stands between "all" receiving mercy is their desire or their will, because God has shown them mercy and he desires them to receive it by faith.

    You believe that desire can't be changed by the gospel, envy, the fear of God, the desire for blessings, pain or suffering, the Holy Spirit's general call to all, or any other external force that God might employ. So, you have created a "effectual calling" by which God changes the desires of a select few. I just don't buy that. And that's not because I don't like where it leads, I don't buy it because scripture doesn't support it.

    BTW, when Paul said, "Who are you oh man to talk back to God." He was speaking about Israel's hardening. God had chosen the remnant, of which Paul was one, to avoid the hardening and he was explaining to the Jews that God was "just" in hardening them and he uses Pharoah as an example of one who was hardened after refusing to follow God, just as the Israelites were hardened after their continual rebellion. The Jews would have asked, "Why would God blame us, for who resists his will?" Thus his reply. He can chose to use the lump of clay for noble purposes like being an apostle, or for common use like being hardened.
     
  17. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    You know, in all my postings about the Attributes of Man, I neglected to include the Attribute of Disobedience (the Sin nature). That's because since we all hold tenaciously to that attribute, I just figured you all know we had it...guess I was wrong! Maybe you don't recognize it in yourselves. Maybe you think that because you believe in Jesus that you no longer have a disobedience attribute, but you'd be wrong. God put it in Adam and it has been handed down generation to generation everafter.

    For those of you who were saved, having your sin nature washed away by Jesus blood, in your youth, before marriage...how did your kids get it? You do recognize that your kids have a sin nature do you not?
     
  18. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Aki

    Aki Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yelsew, i do not count myself as an Arminian. may i am or maybe i am not. the reason the i don't know that is because i am not aware of the arminian doctrine. all i know is that i am opposed to Calvinism.

    to respond to what you said, let me give you an advise. this is not a personal attack, but then what you have written above shows that you do not know the teachings of the people you are debating.


    i do not believe that the sin nature was gone the moment of salvation. but are you sure the Calvinists teach that? i don't think they do.


    no Yelsew. God gave Adam two things. volition and a rule. there is no point in giving a rule if Adam would not have volition. and neither would volition make sense if God is not to make a rule. by volition Adam had the ability to obey or disobey God, thus Adam is able to sin even without the sin nature. what the sin nature did is that it blotted out the ability of man to not sin all his life.

    when Adam sinned, he eventually got the sin nature and he, not God, transmitted it to all his progeny seminally thereafter.

    upon salvation, a believer still has this sin nature, but with the Holy Spirit to convict him upon temptation.

    to get closer to the issue though, Calvinists extends the concept of the sin nature to the point that man will not be able to respond to the Holy Spirit's general call. thus, being born with the sin nature, each man never had the "ability"!
     
  20. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, you have the quote a little bit wrong: Christ did not merely make salvation possible for all men, He made it certain for His elect." Here's how Charles Hodge puts it:
    Christ's death had special reference to the elect, but that doesn't mean it had no reference at all to the rest of mankind. Christ's death made it objectively possible for anyone who hears the gospel to be saved, by removing the legal barriers to salvation. There is now a means by which anyone who believes can be save.

    The means is the atonement of Christ, which can be appropriated through faith. And the responding mechanism, or the understanding mechanism in the unelect are still functional. They could understand and respond IF THEY SO DESIRED. But they don't so desire.....
     
Loading...