Featured The subject of Hardenig in its connections

I don't think this addressed my question. I asked who, if not God, decided the result of man's free will choice to sin? Who decided that all mankind would be born totally unable to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled?

 

Again, I'm not seeing the answer. Forgive me and bare with me as I'm trying. My child may be responsible and have 'free will' for the decision to obey my command to clean his room, but I'm responsible for for the choice of punishment. If I beat him black and blue I go to jail, but if I ground him for a few days I don't.

We both agree that men are free and responsible for their choice to sin and that God permitted that choice and the fall. I'm specifically asking about the punishment or result of that sin. Do you agree that God must have been the one to decide that the result of man's free rebellion would result in his inability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled? Isn't God responsible for deciding that Total Inability would be the result of sin?

Do you understand the question?

 

Well, that is because men are held responsible for what they know...for what has been clearly revealed to them. How can they believe in one who they have not heard? But once they have heard they are held responsible...why? Because they are response-abled. They are able to respond to any level of God's revelation and that is why they are always without excuse. To suggest, as Calvinism does, that men are born unable to see, hear, understand and respond to the revelation without first being regenerated undermines this truth and gives unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief. What better excuse is their for unbelief than the one Calvinism gives? If God asks a non-elect reprobate, "Why didn't you believe in me?" He could legitly answer: "Because I wasn't granted faith." "Because God didn't love me." "Because I wasn't made able to see, hear and understand."

But not every Gentile throughout history did reject the light, so what do we do with those? Do we presume, as Calvinist must do, that God regenerated them making them 'fear the Lord' or 'worship' him? Must we speculate, as I believe Calvinists do, that God must have made those favorable by irresistible means so as to find favor with them?

Rahab, the Harlot, was deemed righteous on the account of her little bit of faith in hiding the spies of God. Christ blood covered her sin not because she knew the gospel, biblical doctrine or even the OT law, but because God graciously chose to grace a woman who had a mustard seed size of faith in whatever little revelation she had been given.

Romans 1 never states that everyone rejected the clearly revealed and understood revelation of God...it merely tells us that no one who rejects His revelation has any excuse for their rejection.

You did it again. You've taken a verse which teaches that mankind is unable to attain righteousness through the works of the law and interpreted to mean that men are also unable to attain righteousness through faith.

Keep reading in chapter 3 and verse 21 and you will see these TWO types of righteousness Paul is addressing. No one is righteous under the law, but that has nothing to do with righteousness through faith. Think about it! How can he say that no one is righteous, no not one and then one chapter later say that Abraham was righteous? He is saying that no one can attain righteousness through their merit, but they certain can by Grace through faith.

Many up to this point in history had been deemed righteous in the site of God. Not one of them on the basis of their works of the law, but many on the basis of God's grace applied through faith.

BTW, faith doesn't earn grace. Humility doesn't earn grace. Even believers deserve hell. Even the humble deserve punishment. God, in his Grace, chooses to grace the humble and believing because he is GOOD, not because they deserve it.

 

I have been reading this thread with interest. For some reason, The Biblicist is not answering a simple question. That question has been asked four times (so far) out of the forty-four posts in this thread, so I've got to presume that The Biblicist has seen the question. If not, here's a refresher:

So what is your answer Biblicist?

 

We all agree. This is like saying, "My son was free to obey or disobey my command to clean his room," but it doesn't tell us why you chose to beat him black and blue for disobeying.

But who, if not God, decided that 'a loss of spiritual ability' would be the result of man's sin? That is the question. We all know man is responsible for the sin, I am asking who decided the result of that sin. Who decided that inability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled would result from the Fall? God had to make that choice, right?

Resulted in sin, yes. Resulted in inability to respond to God when he makes an appeal to be reconciled back into relationship with him because of that sin???? I don't know because you won't answer that part of the question.

 

No, actually I'm accepting your definition of death, which is the 'total inability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled' and asking you "WHO, if not God, decided that 'inability' (your definition of spiritual death) would be the result of sin." You refuse to give the obvious answer...

I think everyone reading along can see what you are attempting to avoid. You don't want to admit the problem with your view, which is that God has in his sovereign plan punished men for sin by making them unable to respond to His own appeal to be reconciled for that sin, which of course is a non-sensial position and it's no wonder you would want to avoid admitting it.

 

To be fair Skan, all Calvinists avoid this logical conclusion of Calvinism. You can't get ANY Calvinist to admit what is obvious in their system, that God is the author of evil.

Now, that said, Non-Cals and Arminians are just as bad, because they also teach that men are born with a sin nature, which I reject. I believe God has made man upright, but all men go out in sin and become sinners (Ecc 7:29)

God cursing man to be a sinner is illogical and nonsensical if God truly hates sin. We lock up criminals in prison to restrain them and prevent them from committing more evil, why would God cause men to be born sinners if he truly hates sin?

If God wanted to punish all mankind for Adam's sin by taking away his freedom, it makes far more sense that God would take away the freedom to do evil.

Now doesn't that make a lot more sense? And I hardly believe man is wiser than God.

So both sides have to answer why God would make men sinners if God truly hates sin.

But... Calvinism is still worse than non-Cal or Arminian thought, because non-Cals and Arms at least believe God left man with the ability to respond to the gospel, therefore all men could be saved if they chose to. This is much better than Calvinism with it's Limited Atonement.

But you aren't going to get Biblicist or any Calvinist (except maybe Luke) to admit that God made men sinners in their system.

 

Winman, your view is not consistent with Baptist doctrine and though I'm sure you have good reasons for holding to it you will need to make that case in the non-Baptist forums. Thanks

 

Well, all I am saying is that as long as non-Cals and Arminians hold to Original Sin they will be seen as hypocritical when criticizing Calvinists for believing God made man a sinner, because you believe the exact same thing. And believe me, they will readily use this against you in any debate.

Not all Baptists believe in Original Sin. John Smyth, the man credited as starting the first truly Baptist church did not believe in Original Sin. It is actually the influence of Calvinism that has corrupted the Baptists IMO.

Here is a Baptist church that does not believe in Original Sin;

http://www.midwaybiblebaptistchurch.com/prov-thot/original_sin.htm

But you are correct, I do have scripture that supports my view.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Pretty simple, scripture says God has made man upright, not a sinner. And the word "they" points back to "man" and shows this is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The scriptures say the son shall not bear the iniquities of his father. This refutes OS.

Again, not all Baptists believe in OS.

 

Winman,

I could send you dozens of links of those calling themselves Baptist who believe all kinds of weird things, which is why the Forum provides a Statement of Faith...

I'm sorry if you disagree with this but it is the standard this particular forum has adopted so if you would like to debate this point I'd simply point you to the non-Baptist portion of the forum. Thanks

 

Very well, but you will never get anywhere with Calvinists as long as you agree with them.

They are going to argue that in your system God also made man a sinner. And truth be told, they are correct.

Think about it.

 

Winman, I don't want to start a debate on this point, but Paul CLEARLY teaches that God bound men over to their sin, the difference is that we also agree with Paul that God did this for a redemptive purpose, not a condemning one.

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Rm 11:32

 

So, inability happened by accident? Chance? Mother Nature? What or who decided the result of sin would be inability?

You have yet to reply to that specific question...

 

I also do not want to distract from the thread, but this in no way is teaching that God caused all men to have a sin nature, it is simply saying that God has concluded all men are sinners and bound by sin.