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!

What view of justice is "carnal" and what is not?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Dec 18, 2011.

  1. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1

    Please do explain how Arminian Theology exalts man and diminishes God. There is NOTHING man can possibly do to diminish God, it is an impossibility You mistake "assailment" for people who disagree with you, which obviously you seem to be incapable of accepting, rather, you simply declare and describe them in dismissive ways. ANYONE who does not look through your lens of theology automatically becomes a second class believer, if you even grant them "believer" status.
     
  2. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Kind of like when you felt the need to tell us God doesn't beget children like we do?

    But, the difference here is that WE do consider motive and you implied we don't.

    Agreed. What does that have to do with establishing any view except the Calvinistic one is 'carnal?'

    Where did I say that men's motives shouldn't be judged? You are once again confusing the issues. It would only be wrong for God to judge the motive of a man that he himself determined to be. It would be like you slipping a drug into your friends drink that made him drunk and then judging him for being drunk. I have NO problem with God judging the motives of men's hearts in my system because in my system they are the original cause of their heart's condition.

    They are not humble because they did not 'humble themselves' as scripture says are to do. They are without excuse in my system, where as in your system they have the perfect excuses:

    1. God didn't chose me
    2 God doesn't really love me
    3. God determined me to be like I am from birth
    4. I had no hope to be reconciled because the atonement was never bought for me.
    5. I could not believe because faith wasn't granted to me

    etc etc
     
  3. 12strings

    12strings Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    double post
     
    #44 preacher4truth, Dec 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2011
  5. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    Another problem with this statement is it is along the edge of Socianinism. NOT in respect to the denial of the trinity, or deity of Christ, but in the fact that Jesus is a moral example, and along this line each of us also has an opportunity to NOT sin as He did not sin. This is a denial of the fact that we are born already corrupt, and already condemned before our first initial and personal sin.

    One great fallacy from all of this is in the fact that if a person never sinned, and lived up to all of the Law, never breaking a commandment, then what is preventing said person from dying for the sins of others as a perfect sacrifice? One glaring problem is they are not the Son of the Living God. Yet, in this doctrine we see a grave error. There was only One and could only ever be One that could and would accomplish this, that is, fulfill all of the Law and live perfectly. God did not prophesy or predict anyone other than His Son capable of doing this. To deviate from any of this is to teach error.

    The Scriptures are clear, in Adam we are already under condemnation, and already guilty, already sinful.

    This then is another, yet subtle, exaltation of man that is not Biblical by any means. Some non-cals also hold to their denial of Omniscience. Many non-cal theologies incorporate some of these fallacies, albeit unaware that they do so.
     
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Whoa, got to stop you there. I never said "apart from an inherited sin nature."

    I believe men are born sinners, which is why God sent a savior.
    I believe men are born enemies, which is why God makes an appeal for all his enemies to be reconciled.
    I believe men are born slaves, which is why He sent us the TRUTH by which we may be set free.

    I just deny the assumption that God's work in graciously providing all these undeserved mercies is somehow insufficient to leave all men without any excuse. Such as, "God didn't grant me faith, so I couldn't believe." God gave man all they needed and those who reject him do so by their OWN self-determined will.
     
    #46 Skandelon, Dec 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2011
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Benjamin,
    I can agree with you here:
    Paul knew about philosophy..yes...he related to those he spoke to,both in acts 17,and titus....But his conclusion was that all their idols, statues, philosphy,and learning...did not lead them to God, but was in fact bankrupt
    spiritually. We know this because of several other times he speaks directly of it; it is proper to talk some science with a scientist...but very little...we are to steer them into scripture, heart issues, sin, and repentance.

    [QUOTE23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

    24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

    25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

    27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

    28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

    29That no flesh should glory in his presence. ][/QUOTE]


    Now...you yourself allude to this here;

    Yes... we are to be all things to all men..agreed.

    However, that being said...you do NOT see the apostles using worldly philosophy to water down or dismiss direct quotes from scripture, or direct teaching of the grace of God.
    they do not use worldly and carnal phikosophy to obscure the scripture.
    I see that happen here on BB daily...it should not be so.
    No one posts here or anywhere else if they believe what they post is in error.
    Yet there is much error here.
    If I am in error I would be open to scriptural correction...as you should be.
    I do not see any teaching saying we should use worldly philosophy,or debate techniques, to come to truth.... Sola scriptura is the way to go.


    ps. here is what I was "whinning about" as you like to say, hot off the press in another thread post 82,between skan and aaron...skan says this;
     
    #47 Iconoclast, Dec 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2011
  8. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, but I often see Calvinist "phikosophy" being used to water down scripture and dismiss direct quotes from the Bible and in this case a Calvinist that does it while ignorantly devaluing man’s sense of reason. You’re sounding rather cultic to me, Pal.

    You don’t seem to realize that the very system you use to interpret the scriptures within comes from reasoning through philosophical principles about what those scriptures mean. Ironic that you call other’s philosophy “worldly” while you strictly hold to a worldly philosophical system that boxes in and force fits your every interpretation. Yet, in your conceit of your system you dispute and attempt to devalue intelligent reasoning as if you are privileged to be in a state of special spiritual enlightenment regarding your systematic force fitted interpretations. Here is some scripture for you, my friend:

    (Pro 26:16) The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.

    (Heb 5:14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

    (1Pe 3:15) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
     
    #48 Benjamin, Dec 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2011
  9. 12strings

    12strings Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    I assumed that you did believe these things, in which case how does this fit with your statement that:

    Would not Adam's sin be the original cause of their heart's condition?
     
  10. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1


    Mega Kudos. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
  11. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    Indeed not, IF a saint, as God grants us the HS to dwell in us, Jesus to be our High priest to intercede for us, and the Bible to teach/instruct us!
     
  12. 12strings

    12strings Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be that we agree with everything you have said here (based on Rom. 1) with the exception of the bolded statement. God revealed himself through nature so that we SHOULD respond in worship to him, but due to our inherited sinful nature, we do not. God has said we are without excuse, but he also says the natural man CANNOT please God.

    I would additionally argue that there are many people who have not been given "everything" they need, in that they go their whole lives without hearing about Jesus, or hearing the gospel.
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Icon, with all due respect this type of critique is a bit uninformed. Libertarianism (free will theology) is a philosophical system, but so is Capatibilism (Calvinism). You may not engage in that aspect of the discussion, but both are rooted in their respective biblical view of scripture. And if you are not aware, Philosophy is defined as, "rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct," so whether you admit it (or are even aware of it or not) you engage in philosophical defense in almost everyone of your posts. In fact, so did the apostles.
     
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which would be the perfect excuse.

    "Why didn't you believe in Christ?" asks God.

    "Due to my inherited sinful nature I could not believe. It wasn't granted to me. I wasn't chosen. I wasn't loved.," replies the unbeliever.

    What better excuse is there in the world than that?

    He can't please God without faith, but with faith all things are possible.

    That is where Romans 1 comes in because even the natural revelation is sufficient for one to know God and acknowledge Him as God. And scripture seems to be clear that men are held accountable to the level of their revelation. More could be said on this point, but its a topic in and of itself.
     
  15. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You need to be reminded of your delimma. Your assertions don't exonerate God of the charges you assert Calvinism makes.

    He knows of the evil to come, He creates a world that is subject to it, all the while having the power to prevent it. You want to use natural judgment to assign culpability, but deny the eminently self-evident and natural fact that if the work of your hands injures or damages another, whether intentional or not, or if you have failed to make provision for the safety of individuals on your property, you are liable.

    Then you assert that your children are like the work of your hands, or your property!

    There is only one conclusion one can draw if the obtuseness displayed isn't feigned:

    You really have no idea of God, His power, or His will.
     
  16. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, is this faith that is given by the Spirit through the hearing of the Gospel irresistible? In other words are all men given just enough to become able to please Him by believing the Gospel whether they want it or not?
     
  17. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    I say YES, all men are equipped with what is necessary. Some may refer to it as prevenient grace, I say it is part of the imago dei in which ALL men are created.
     
  18. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Okay, I admit it; I've been given a lesson by Skandelon in how to be "humilified" ...is that a word? :tonofbricks:

    But, I still think "Calvinist phikosophy" was funny. :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #58 Benjamin, Dec 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2011
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    What does that even mean Aaron? Read over your statement again and maybe you will see how confounding it sounds. Why would God prevent that which he 'subjects?' Foreknowledge presumes permission otherwise what is there to be foreknown? IOW, God's choice to subject the world to the choice of free moral creatures and evil's consequences is itself a matter of HIS sovereign choice. That which He specifically foreknows did not come about because he permitted IT to come about. He foreknows of the evil because evil happened and it happened because he created a world subject to freedom and evil choices. The evil originated with the creature, not the creator.

    So, if you lied today at noon, that didn't happen because God foresaw you lie and permitted the lie. You lied because you freely chose to lie. You had that freedom because God subjected the world to free choice and evil. See the difference?

    In your system divine foreknowledge has no meaning because things are never merely foreknown to God in a deterministic world. They are all predetermined. Permission also means nothing. Why would God need to permit what He is actively determining to do?

    If God determined the nature of Jeffrey Dahmer so that his choices could not have been otherwise then God is not merely foreseeing and permitting Dahmer's acts, instead God is originating and determining Dahmer's acts.

    As apposed to the supernatural kind? Only God could pass judgement supernaturally, we are left to our human (God given...i.e. 'natural') devices... as guided by the scripture, of course. And to claim your view is the biblical one and thus not 'carnal' like mine, is once again just question begging.

    Actually it was your assertion that mankind was like God's property while I was attempting to argue that to God mankind is more like our children in regard to their independent will and thus individual culpability. If the robot I created (or even my dog) kills a neighbor kid I could go to jail. If my grown child kills a neighborhood kid he goes to jail.

    Now apply that to the view of man's culpability. We KNOW that men are held accountable (go to jail/hell) for their sins, so that is a given, thus it is reasonable we are more like the 'grown children' (my assertion) in the analogy than we are like robots, dogs or other such property (your assertion). If YOU want to suggest we are more like property then you need to explain why God wouldn't be held accountable his properties failings, but that is not my premise, its yours. Why would I need to explain the failings of YOUR premise?

    And in a deterministic existence, whose fault is that exactly? God must have like you better and decided to give you a better brain and heart, right? You are so blessed. All hail Aaron, the favored one! ;)
     
    #59 Skandelon, Dec 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2011
  20. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Skan,

    That is correct...I reject both terms.....they are outside the realm of scripture ,or scriptural teaching.

    There is no free will...it does not exist...so I reject this out of hand,and for the most part, i try to avoid these discussions as i believe they are unbiblical to start with......


    Free moral agent...yes ....free will no...

    Benjamin had this right ,it is a waste of time to discuss this with me....it is wrong right from the start....:thumbsup:

    in many of your posts you start with an assumption that this is a given......not in my world!
     
Loading...