Featured Consider Jack and Joe - who is worse?

My own personal opinion is that the Doctrines of Grace are meaningful for believers only, as is Arminian doctrine. I believe "Earth, Wind & Fire" said it best:

 

My point is I can honestly tell any individual that Jesus loves them, died for them, and wants them to come to Him. Can you? It seems you like EWF prefer to leave out your Doctrines of Pre-selected Grace when witnessing, I have nothing to hide. That is saying it best! Truth is always best. I can't even imagine preaching the Gospel with a belief that the one I am speaking to may have no hope I put the Light up there for all to see. I give them no excuse.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
(Joh 1:9)

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
(1Jn 1:5)

 

...and you know what I think of your message.

 

Calvinists preach to men as though they have the real ability to choose God, but they do not really believe that. If you are elect, you have no real choice, you will irresistibly come, if you are not elect, you have no choice, you cannot possibly come.

Oh, they will say the elect chose Christ and the non elect refused to choose Christ, but the man himself did not determine his choice, it was determined for him. The elect man was regenerated and given a nature that could not possibly refuse Christ, the non elect is left with a nature that can only refuse him. The non elect did not choose the nature he was born with, it was imposed upon him at birth without his knowledge or consent.

Again, it is like a child born addicted to drugs because his mother was a user, no person would justly accuse the child of wrong, his addiction was imposed upon him. This child would be worthy of compassion, not condemnation.

Yet, in the Calvinist/Reformed view, the child is guilty for something he never chose.

 

Will you fault God?

Your original scenarios assert certain falsehoods. Here is the question posed with the situation more accurately represented:

Jack: Is a sinful and depraved man who is born an enemy of God and in need of reconciliation with his Creator, God. God chose to have mercy in Jack's place.
​

Joe: Is a sinful and totally depraved man who is born an enemy of God and in need of reconciliation with his Creator, God. God did not choose to have mercy on Joe.

​

So, who is going to fault God?

 

I cannot subscribe to scenarios. Man is born in sin and stands under the impending wrath of God (Romans 1:18; 3:23). Man is spiritually dead and unable to do anything to change his spiritual condition (Ephesians 2:1). God must take unilateral action to change man's status quo (Ephesians 2:4, 5). This is not a scenario it is reality. Apart from Christ man is born in a woeful condition that offers no hope. Any inclination in the heart of man towards Christ is first given by the Father through the Spirit.

 

We are all born addicted to sin because our father Adam sinned. That is why everyone dies. I know you want to believe that Adam's sin did not get imputed to us, but it did. That is why ALL die, without exception. Even cute, innocent little puppies die because of Adam's sin. You cannot deny this. We are born under a curse and death is the PROOF of it.

 

And I ask you, is it JUST to condemn a baby that is born addicted to drugs because his mother used drugs?

This is basically what is taught, that men sin because they are born addicted to sin. They had no choice or say in the matter, but this depraved condition was forced and imposed on them.

So, is it just to condemn a person for being born in a condition which he cannot possibly avoid? How can a man be blamed for being born in a depraved condition that forces him to sin?

That said, I do not have this problem, as I believe all men are made upright (Ecc 7:29), and that all men when they come of age and maturity to understand right from wrong willingly choose to sin, and therefore their condemnation is perfectly just.

My view makes man even more responsible and evil than either Skan's view, or the view of Calvinism/Reformed.

 

OK to clarify, "Whoever wills may come" No one on the Last day will be able to say that they were prevented by God from coming to Christ. However, due to their own wickedness and the hardness of their hearts, men will not come unless the Father draws them irresistibly into the kingdom. When they do come, they will know that God the Father loved them from eternity and sent the Son to pay for their sins upon the cross, and the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sins and seal them for the day of redemption.

 

Reset

Lets leave for latter the depiction of Joe and think about Jack.

Are humans born an enemy of God? We do know that friendship with the world makes us into enemies of God, James 4:4.

We also know that if we set our minds on the flesh, i.e. fleshly desires, we are then hostile toward God (Romans 8:7). But a baby's mind is too immature to have done anything good or bad so again we are born estranged from God, but not willful enemies.

It would be more accurate to say Satan, the flesh and the world will make each person an enemy of God over time. And of course we are born, even conceived, estranged from God, for the many were made sinners, and not only were we separated from God as sinners are, but also corrupted, predisposed to sin. Paul speaks of this corruption in Romans 7:21, which says even when we wish to do good in the inner man, we are opposed by our flesh because we are enslaved to the law of sin.

Bottom line, at least initially, our inner man is not an enemy of God, but certainly can become an enemy over time.

Next the description of Jack says he is chosen, suggesting he was chosen individually before he rejected Christ. That certainly does not have the ring of truth. Only believers are chosen "through faith in the truth."

Finally what is this about "genuinely" loved. He certainly is part of the world of fallen mankind and God loved the world in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish.

Here the actual biblical truth is we are sinners so God hates us, but at the same time we are potential children of God so God loves us. Therefore while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, demonstrating love.

If we do not begin with a proper biblical understanding of our condition as actually described in the Bible, we will go astray in our doctrine.

 

I believe it was Spurgeon who said that he had never seen a person with elect on their forehead. I haven't either. Perhaps you are able to do so.

 

Jack is also "totally" depraved, not just Joe!

 

It is part of man's nature to breathe. It is also part of man's nature to sin!

 

Our inner man is dead, thus has to be quickened. It has nothing to do with whether it is an enemy of God, it is dead. And we are all under sin by nature. In Adam all die. All have sinned, none seeks after God. God loves His creation, so by grace he provided His own Son a sacrifice for sin. It pleased God to bruise Him. That verse stuck a deep chord with me after I first got saved. I have never fully understood how great a love that is, for I could never send my own son to die. Salvation is of the Lord, and none of us would get saved if it weren't for the grace of God. Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe. And we are kept by the power of God. We just need to tell people the gospel, and the elect will choose to come to Christ, and those that choose to come to Christ are the elect. But all of us are accepted in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2:3 (HCSB)
3 We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children under wrath as the others were also.

 

That does not answer my question. Is it JUST that we should condemn a little baby who is born addicted to drugs because his mother used drugs while she was pregnant?

Answer that question please, is this JUST?

 

Reply to Bronconaqurski

The issue is not whether being "dead" is our condition, the issue is how does being "dead" limit our spiritual ability to seek God and trust Christ. To try to define the word as meaning more that separated from the living and unable to restore life, i.e. reunion with the living God, is without merit.

In Matthew 13:1-26 we see four different kinds of people, the first soil has the characteristics you claim apply to all people because all are dead. However, note that the next three soils are also "dead" yet seek God and trust in Jesus to some degree. Therefore your definition is unbiblical.

Of course salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works. Our faith is worthless, just another filthy rag, but it is God who credits that filthy rag as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5. Therefore we are saved by grace through faith, our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand.

And we are kept by the power of God who protects our faith, 1 Peter 1:3-5.

We need to beg the lost, be reconciled to God, through faith in Christ.

The inner man is separated from God, but seeks God, so even in a "dead" state with limited spiritual ability, is not hostile to God all the time, only some of the time, i.e. with the mind set on flesh.

 

I condemn no one. That must be left to the purview of God!

I really don't understand what

has to do with Jack or Joe or the doctrine of election

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

You are teaching false doctrine. I have already proved that the scripture says there is none that seeketh after God. NONE

And yes, the spirit is dead, and has to be made alive, or quickened by God. The spirit does NOT seek after God. Period. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't biblical. Watch a young child and let him go his own way and you will end up with a disaster. You have to teach children to obey and behave, or they naturally will go the wrong way.

Jesus plainly said that no man can come to him except the Father drag him.