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!

Featured The subject of Hardenig in its connections

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by The Biblicist, Jul 27, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 4 of 6
  1. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why would God take away man's freedom to do good if he hates sin and does not want man to sin? Does that make sense?

    We lock criminals up in prison to restrain and prevent them from committing more crime, wouldn't it make more sense for God to take away man's freedom to do evil rather than good?

    If God took away man's freedom to do good, does it follow that God desired men to do evil?
     
    #61 Winman, Jul 29, 2013
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Who ever said God took away that ability? Did God introduce sin into the world? I believe that the sin of Adam did, last time I checked.

    What does our man made system of justice have to do with God's purposes?

    God did not take away that ability, the introduction of sin did. Therefore, your last phrase is a moot point.
     
    #62 saturneptune, Jul 29, 2013
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Why do you start with blaming God for JUST conseqences for man's sin?????? That is the same mindset of Atheists. They blame God for all the evil in the world because if God is good and God is omnipotent then God could stop evil and because evil is not stopped then God is to blame. No, MAN and HIS SIN is to blame for all of its consequences even the loss of will power over "the law of sin" (Rom. 7;18).
     
    #63 The Biblicist, Jul 29, 2013
  4. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    How did sin cause inability?

    Common sense. When a man shows himself to be harmful and dangerous to society, we take away his freedom to do evil by locking him up.

    Likewise, if God truly hates sin as he repeatedly says he does, why would he curse man by taking away his ability to do good? Does that makes sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to take away his ability to do evil if God really hates evil?

    How did sin do that? That is what Skan is asking. What was the cause behind sin causing inability?

    And if God ordains all that happens, wasn't it God that ordained that sin would cause inability?

    Why would God do that if he hates sin? Seems to me he would have ordained that sin would cause inability to do evil.

    We hate evil and crime, and so we take away (or try to anyway) a criminal's ability to do evil. Wouldn't God do the same?
     
    #64 Winman, Jul 29, 2013
  5. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    You have not been reading my posts, I do not believe God cursed man with a sin nature as you do. I believe all men freely and willingly choose to sin of their own free will.

    You on the other hand believe God cursed Adam and all his posterity with an inability to do good, though you will not come clean and admit it. No one is fooled.

    Do you simply believe if you pretend your problem will go away? :laugh:
     
    #65 Winman, Jul 29, 2013
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    This argument seems to be the crux of Skandelon and your reasoning against inability.

    This is like saying if God loves to fellowship with man then why would God curse man by SEPARATING himself from man, casting out of the garden.

    Both are backward arguments. Both should be stated as follows:

    If MAN loved his freedom of will from sin then why would MAN willfully violate God's will and forfeit it? If MAN wanted fellowship with God why would MAN break that fellowship by sin?

    Your whole logic begins with blaming God just like the Atheists who make the same kind of arguments worded in the same way according to the same logic. It is backward and wrong.
     
    #66 The Biblicist, Jul 29, 2013
  7. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, Skan believes as you do, that God cursed man with a sin nature, although Skan does not believe in inability as you do.

    God chased Adam and Eve out of the garden for their own good. If they would have taken of the tree of life they would have lived forever in a corruptible state, becoming more and more perverse.

    When God cursed the ground so that man has to work hard to live, that is a blessing, keeping man busy so that he cannot commit evil. Everyone knows that idle hands are the devil's workshop.

    Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

    In Calvinism, only God has the power to change the heart, so it was God who caused man to be unable to do good, though you will not admit it.

    You believe that the death God cursed man with was inability, I do not believe that, I believe death is separation, not inability. Therefore you believe God caused man's inability. I do not believe that.

    I am not blaming God whatsoever. I believe God gave every man free will and that all men choose to sin. I do not believe God cursed them so that they are unable to do good as you believe.
     
    #67 Winman, Jul 29, 2013
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Do you believe it is "spiritual" separation? Do you beleive a person physically alive is at the same point in time "spiritually" separated from God?

    If you do beleve in "spiritual" separation from God then what do you believe makes up that "spiritual" elment within human nature? Do you believe it includes the condition of the mind or heart or will?
     
    #68 The Biblicist, Jul 29, 2013
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I never said that. I just asked a question and you won't answer it. Someone had to decide what the consequences would be, unless you just believe it happened by chance or something. I don't know what you believe because you won't say...

    So, it is your position that the consequence of becoming total unable is JUST. Great, so is that your way of saying it was God's decision to impose those consequences or not? Just say it.

    Not at all. If I spank my kid for lying then I'd argue that he is being justly held accountable for his actions, but I AM the one who decided to spank him...it didn't happen by accident. I chose the punishment/consequence for his lie. I'm simply asking you who, if not God, chose the consequence of total inability? Why not just answer that question and say, "I believe it was God who made that decision and I believe it is a JUST one." Then when can move on.

    I'm not saying you believe God made men sin, any more so that I made my child lie. I'm talking about the choice of God to punish mankind with total inability as a result of their sin. I don't know how to be any more clear about this.
     
    #69 Skandelon, Jul 29, 2013
  10. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let's use some of this famous Calvinist logic and deductive reasoning, shall we? Since the Biblicist refuses to answer the question regarding whether or not God caused man's inability, we are left with these alternatives--man had the power to change his nature so that he would be unable to respond to God's appeal via the gospel or else it was Satan. So, Biblicist, if not God, was it man or Satan?
     
    #70 InTheLight, Jul 29, 2013
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lets try multiple choice:

    Question for a parent:

    1. If my child lies I will:
    a. Spank him
    b. Ground him
    c. Beat him
    d. Kill him

    Question for God:

    1. If man sins I will:

    a. Separate myself from him, curse him with ground to toil and labor pains, allow him to know good and evil and make choices he is held responsible for; including the choice to be reconciled to me when I make that appeal.

    b. Make him total unable to willingly respond even to my genuine appeal for him to be reconciled.
     
    #71 Skandelon, Jul 29, 2013
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    The question is wrong! We are "children of God" by new birth but Adam was not a chld of God in that sense. You are confusing chastening of children with wrath against enemies.

    The problem you are ignoring is that Adam became God's "enemy" when he sinned not "his child" but he did become a child of satan.

    Now, lets ask the question properly:

    Do you think a Just God if a creature becomes His enemy

    1. Treat as his child and simply chasten him
    2. Treat him as a lawbreaker and justly condemn him
    3. Treat him as an enemy with wrath hovering over him (Jn. 3:36)

    "when we were yet ENEMIES....."


    Wrong questions again. It should be

    1. If my creatures become my enemies I should:

    a. Chasten him as my child

    b. Justly condemn him to not merely immediate spiritual consequences of sin but eternal wrath.



    This twisted logic whereby you place the blame on God for something man's own sin deserves and is responsible for is reprehensible. The very nature of your argument is crafted along the very same lines as those who argue that it is not logical or reasonable that God who consistently claims His love for sinners would curse man with eternal conscious punishment in a place called hell? They would ask, what kind of love for sinners is this? How could love be consistent with such a curse?

    The twisted logic behind your statement is the same as behind their rationale and the error is found in the words God "made him." You first blame God because you reject the nature of the curse, when in reality only the sinner is the blame and the curse is JUST.

    What you fail to grasp is the nature of sin is inability. Sin is not a passive condition but a very agressive state regarded as a "law" or "the law of sin" which has power that is actively opposed to God so that it SEPARATES man from God by its very nature. The "carnal" mindset or the mind under the law of sin is a STATE of enmity or WAR which is divisive by nature and makes love or reconcilation impossible. It is a STATE of resistance against the revealed will of God which is DIVISIVE by nature as it is the inability to submit to God. The condition of the law of sin is irreversable (Neither indeed can be) that is why there is no salvaiton for the fallen nature - only death. The fallen nature is no more "saved" in a Christian as in a lost man - in both it is "the law of sin" and there is no salvation for "the law of sin" as it defies salvation by its very nature -"law".
     
    #72 The Biblicist, Jul 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2013
  13. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    All laws have a lawmaker, who made this "law of sin"?

    Laws do not simply pop into existence, just as the world did not simply pop into existence. Are you teaching a type of evolution? That this law of sin simply appeared out of nowhere without a cause behind it?

    So who or what determined that sin would cause inability?
     
    #73 Winman, Jul 30, 2013
  14. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    BINGO!!:applause::applause:
    You can't make God Sovereign over everything else in the Universe but not the curse of sin. Too many people, I think, try to divorce God of Sovereignty and complicity over the curse of sin as though he had absolutely nothing to do with it.
     
    #74 Inspector Javert, Jul 30, 2013
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    repeated message
     
    #75 The Biblicist, Jul 30, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2013
  16. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thing they are "bound" to is "un-belief" not "sin", and the "all" are the Jews, not all persons.
    Rom 11:30 For as ye,<gentiles> in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their <Jews> unbelief:
    Rom 11:31 Even so have these also <Jews> now not believed, that through your <gentile's> mercy they also <Jews> may obtain mercy.
    Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all[/U]<Jews> in unbelief, [not "sin"]that he might have mercy upon all.<Gentile as well as Jew>
     
    #76 Inspector Javert, Jul 30, 2013
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    So you believe that God is the Author of Sin? You must believe that as your assertion that laws do not just pop into existence and then your questions that follow leaves you no other option.

    As a matter of fact the Bible says of the origin of sin that it was "FOUND" in Lucifer.

    Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

    Here is the origin of sin in the universe. NOt created but "found in thee."

    Second, the term "law" does not mean what you think it means in regard to sin. It does not refer to a "statute" as in a legal or moral sense. Neither does it mean a "law" in a creational sense as issuing from God as iniquity was "found" in Lucifer rather than created by God.

    It means a "law' in the operational sense or the way something always responds in a given way. Sin always operates in a given manner - It always SEPARATES. Physically it always SEPARATES the material man from the immaterial man. Spiritually it always SEPARATES the imaterial Man from the immaterial God. Eternally it always SEPARATES the fallen man from God and a sinless creation.

    Isa. 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

    Eph. 5:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

    Therefore the "law" of sin is that it always separates and that is DEATH.

    Third, "inability" is inherent in this "law" of separation as it "always" operates in that manner, thus a "law" of separation.

    You do not understand that it is this "law" of sin that demands total inability because the nature of sin is the INABILITY to UNITE because it by nature ALWAYS separates without any exception to that rule of operation. The Law of sin operating in the immateral part of man always SEPARATES the mind, heart and will from God. The "carnal" mindset is always at "ENMITY" or a STATE OF WAR with God - that is ANTAGONISTIC DIVISION rather than "peace" (unity). The carnal mind always "IS" (STATE OF BEING VERB) not subject to the revealed will of God - that is a state of ANTAGONISTIC RESISTANCE rather than submission (unity) and "neither indeed can be" because that is the way it ALWAYS operates as "law." Sin operates ALWAYS to separate man (irreversable inability to be brought into union) from God. The the total inability is how this law ALWAYS functions - it ALWAYS separates, divides and NEVER operates to UNITE. That is why it is called the "law" of sin as it never operates in any other manner and by nature demands total inability to operate in any other manner.

    So your position must accuse God of sin because that is how you define "law" and your definition of "law" demands what God creates as a "law" does not just pop into existence by your definition. Your position must deny the very nature of sin which is INABILITY TO UNITE or IRREVESABLE SEPARATION. Man by nature is totally without the ability to unite with God due to the law of sin (separation).

    The very words of Christ "no man CAN" demand universal inaiblity whether you like it or not.
     
    #77 The Biblicist, Jul 30, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2013
  18. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why do you try to distract and misrepresent me, I do not believe death causes inability, I have already said that. Skan does not believe death causes inability either, we believe death is separation.

    It is you that believes death causes inability. Skan and I do not believe this. Therefore we cannot possibly be blaming God for it.

    For once you have said something correct, sin originated from within Satan.

    I understood exactly what you meant, you meant a law like Ohm's law where V=IR


    Now you are agreeing with Skan and I that death is separation.

    The reason no man can come to Jesus unless he is drawn is because man is not born with the knowledge of Jesus. Paul shows this in Romans 10:14;

    Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

    Does Paul ask here how any man can believe in Jesus unless he is supernaturally regenerated? NO, and Paul never says that anywhere in all of scripture, you cannot possibly show it. You simply ASSUME that. No, Paul implies that man only needs to HEAR of Jesus to believe. That this is true is supported by his next question, "and how shall they HEAR without a preacher?"

    Does Paul ask "and how shall they hear unless they be regenerated?" NO! Paul does not say, hint, or even imply that a man must be supernaturally regenerated in order to have this ability to hear the gospel and believe it. And if ever there was a place to state this, this verse and passage would be the perfect place to say so. Paul does not say a man must be regenerated here or anywhere else in the Bible to either hear or believe the gospel.

    So, your "inability" is a man-made fiction not supported by scripture whatsoever.

    Yes, Romans 8 says the carnal mind is enmity with God and not subject to the law of God, but it does not say this is the only state of mind that an unregenerate man is capable of. I showed you this from Barnes notes;

    Barnes was a Calvinist who believed in Total Inability, but he is honest here in saying this verse DOES NOT prove inability.

    This is why I gave you the analogy that while you stare at a young girl in a bikini you cannot possibly please your wife, but this does not mean you are unable to look away and please your wife. Romans 8:7 is simply saying that while a man gives regard to a carnal mind, at this time he cannot possibly please God or be subject to his laws. But it is not teaching inability.

    In addition, I showed you scripture that shows men are able to be spiritually minded.

    Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

    This was spoken of the disciples BEFORE they received the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is speaking of their natural spirit, the spirit of a man, and Jesus says they were willing in their spirit to be obedient, but their flesh was weak and caused them to fall asleep.

    But once again, if you believe death causes inability (Skan and I do not believe this), then who or what made this "law of sin"?

    Why don't you answer the question, are you afraid?
     
    #78 Winman, Jul 30, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2013
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    So far, the above portion of my post has been ignored. However, inaiblity is inseparable (no pun intended) from the "law" of sin when defined as "separation." Where there is no inability there is no sin as sin demands inability because it demands separation. Inability to bridge the gap due to the "law" of separation.
     
    #79 The Biblicist, Jul 30, 2013
  20. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    It was not ignored at all, I answered that the reason men cannot come to Jesus unless they be drawn is because no man is born with the knowledge of Jesus. This corresponds exactly to John 6:45 that shows men must HEAR from the Father and LEARN and be TAUGHT to come to Jesus. Jesus does not say one word about the necessity to be supernaturally regenerated to come to him.

    I showed this by quoting and explaining Romans 10:14. Nowhere else in all of scripture will you see the direct question "and HOW shall they BELIEVE in him of whom they have not HEARD, and HOW shall they HEAR without a preacher?"

    Paul first asks HOW a person shall BELIEVE in Jesus. Does he imply that man must be regenerated to believe in Jesus? No, he implies they must simply HEAR of Jesus. This is supported by the very next question, "and HOW shall they HEAR without a preacher?"

    Does Paul ask how they shall hear unless they be regenerated? NO, Paul implies they must simply hear preaching.

    This verse strongly implies that men have the ability to believe if they hear the preaching of the word of God. It says not one word about the necessity to be supernaturally regenerated to have either the ability to HEAR or BELIEVE the gospel.

    Romans 10:14 agrees perfectly with John 6:45 that those who have HEARD from the Father through the preaching of the word of God, and have LEARNED and been TAUGHT shall come to Jesus.

    You have not proved that man must be regenerated to either HEAR or BELIEVE the gospel, and I challenge you to show any scripture that says this. You can't do it.
     
    #80 Winman, Jul 30, 2013
Page 4 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...