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 conflicted Calvinist

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Feb 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Nevertheless, you are adding into scripture what is not there, it does not say men are compelled to sin.

    Same here, you are reading into scripture. If I made the statement, "my neighbors NEVER go to church, NO, NOT ONE" would you understand that to mean they were unable to go to church? NO, not even YOU would believe that, yet you have allowed Calvinist teaching to cause you to read into scripture what it does not say. It is simply telling you the sinfulness of all men, but it is not saying men are unable to do right. Think about that awhile.

    A slave does not necessarily have to obey his master. A slave can disobey, a slave can run away. But he belongs to his master and when he is captured he is returned. Likewise, once you sin you are sold to sin and belong to it. You cannot escape, no matter what you do, you are BOUND under the penalty of death. This is what the scriptures mean when they say we are servants to sin, it does not mean we HAVE to sin as you and others falsely teach. When a sinner tells the truth, he is not sinning. That good work will not allow him to earn salvation, he is still bound to death, but it is not a sin.

    Yes, we certainly did sin before we were saved, and we still sin after we are saved. But now we are dead to sin, we do not belong to it anymore, like the wife who had been married, but now her husband is dead. We are now married to Christ and under grace. But we still sin.

    We are NEVER compelled to sin. If you are honest you will admit that even before you were saved, sin was a choice. You did not HAVE to lie or steal, you chose to do so. I have never been compelled to sin in my life, not once.

    Misinterpretation of scripture again. Romans 5:12 says DEATH passed on all men, not SIN. Gigantic difference. You are teaching something the scriptures do not say.

    No man is born with a cigarette in his mouth or a bottle of whiskey in his hand. A man chooses to sin when he is not addicted and becomes addicted.

    No he's not. No one forced you to drink.

    No garment starts out as a filthy rag. No leaf starts out brown and dead. You overlook the obvious.

    I am a musician who happens to have an excellent ear.

    If you knew Jeremiah you would know Paul is not saying God picks one person to salvation and another to damnation unconditionally in Romans 9 as Calvinism falsely teaches.

    It is you that has been brain-washed by false teaching. You read into scripture what is not there constantly. You have shown that over and over in this very post.
     
    #61 Winman, Feb 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2013
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

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

    the word used was a willing bondslave...doulas.... they willingly serve. Herald took time and schooled you on your error, and yet you rush headlong back into error. not really a surprise...
     
  3. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Winman,

    I was never under the illusion you were going to repent of your serious error. I have taken the time to go point by point with you; but there is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to invest in a time sink. Hopefully the issues discussed, and the answers provided, will be to the profit of the readers.
     
  4. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    you have both my sincere appreciation & my condolences.
     
  5. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ahh, but the position you are stating that Arminins believe is not what Arminians believe. And for example of that, I will simply point you to John Wesley and prevenient grace.
     
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Depends on the "Calvinist" you are talking to...

    The WCF, a renowned and widely accepted confession of those holding to the Reformed doctrine, does speak of God ordaining whatsoever comes to pass. And many, even here on this board, deny the idea of bare permission ("God allows") regarding sin.

    However, that said, I will concede that some Calvinists do not take it this far and do, as you say, merely teach that God only allows sin. This presents other issues for the Calvinistic system, which we can discuss in detail if you wish.
     
  7. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Impossible in a deterministic model.
     
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I can't speak for all non-Calvinistic Baptist, obviously, but I find no disagreement with what you have said here. :thumbs:

    The issue that I'm raising has to do with contra-causal freedom and the ability of free moral agents to CHOOSE between available options...and be held RESPONSIBLE (response-able) for those choices.

    If God merely allowed an agent to act freely, then you are affirming contra-causual freewill, something many Calvinists deny.
     
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    With the exception of Herald, who appears to be denying determinism, no Calvinist here has addressed the points raised by the OP:

    "Calvinists are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done or believed otherwise. In other words, they are actively rebuking God's ordained and preset will for your life, all the while believing that their own rebuke is likewise God's ordained and preset will. So, according to their circular deterministic worldview (where God is the only actual agent/actor/chooser in existence) they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them."
     
  10. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Quote the WCF accurately:

    It goes on, in disputation of the charge that He ordains only that which He knows according to foreknowledge:

    The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is nearly identical:

     
  11. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    I suppose it depends on how you define determinism.
     
  12. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, and? How did I quote that inaccurately? Just as the OP stated, Calvinists appeal to 'second causes' to attempt to explain away the problems of their deterministic circularity, but this says exactly what I argued. God determines/causes it ('unchangeably ordains it').

    Tell me, how would you explain the difference in 'authoring' something and 'unchangeably ordaining it to come to pass'? What is the difference exactly? Be specific.



    Exactly, which is denying the idea of mere "allowing" as you appeared to be supporting. God, according to this view, doesn't merely foreknow and allow evil, He ordains/determines it.

    Thank you for validating my point.
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Could you please provide an acceptable definition according to your view? Thank you in advance.
     
  14. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    As I already said to webdog, it depends on how you define determinism. Does God bring all things to pass? Yes. By doing so is He the author of sin, or suffer violence to the will of the individual? No. If you think about it both the Arminian and the Calvinist have the same difficulty in providing an answer to this dilemma. Individuals like Winman do not have a problem with it, because He is an Open Theist and a full Pelagian. But for the rest of us we come to the end of ourselves when trying to understand God's will of decree, and its relation to evil (sin). This is where systematic theology is helpful. We understand God through His nature, as it is revealed in the whole counsel of God. We have strong statements such as James' insistence that God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one (Jas. 1:13). So, the difficulty enters in when we know that God cannot sin; does not cause anyone else to sin; yet still uses sin to accomplish His purpose (i.e. Pharaoh and Judas). The belief that God does not cause anyone to sin is tautological in nature.
     
  15. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uh, what you just described is more along the lines of foreknowledge and Arminianism then it is absolute sovereignty and Calvinism.

    My point is that if Judas had no choice, then God IS the author of sin. If I can only "choose" to do sinful things, if repentance is never an option, if grace through faith is only something other people can experience - then how is God in some dualistic way, not evil?
     
  16. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

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

    Herald, it is not right to refer to Winman as an Open Theist or Pelagian. Unless of course he consents to those titles. I don't know his position on OT, but he is definitely not Pelagian, at least not according to any definition of Pelagianism I have ever come across.
     
  17. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, the crux of the matter. And people on another thread wonder how Calvinism can possibly be said to have Gnostic influence.
     
  18. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    He is and I will.
     
  19. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist


    I really got to ask you this......why does that matter so much to you?
     
  20. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,375
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Have you asked him his doctrinal position on this subject?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...