The Often Heard Modern Gospel

HP: I believe both Calvinists and Arminians miss the mark of presenting truth when they start from the false Augustinian notion of original sin. While I credit the Arminians for being slightly inconsistent with that notion, by their insistence that such a doctrine does not infer guilt, or transmit actual guilt because we are born that way, still they insist upon the basic doctrine and ignore where the real problem lies. Sin in no wise lies in the constitution of the flesh as Augustine falsely held, but rather sin lies in the will of man as distinct from any nature he is born with. Certainly we are born with a proclivity to sin, but that serves as an influence to sin, and NOT sin in and of itself.

Calvinists generally associate guilt by original sin, in that all are born with a sinful nature that causes them to sin. Thy are guilty sinners before God on account of the nature they are born with. Their nature is said to be the cause of their sin. If this was true, the only thing that would be blameworthy is their nature, not their choices, for if their nature caused them to sin it would prove that the relationship between their will and the actual sin would be one of necessity not freedom. Accountability can only be justly incurred where true freedom exists. "Freedom to do as one wills" as often stated by Calvinists, or those leaning hard towards Calvinism, is in reality necessity, and not freedom in the least. The relationship that exists between the will and the doing is one of necessity not freedom. One can ONLY do as one wills.

HP: God has often worked in spite of certain doctrinal beleifs, not because of them. As I stated before, the further a Calvinist,or one leaning hard in that direction, preaches away from the necessity of the Calvinistic theology, and preaches conssitent with personal responsibility, the more results they will have.

HP: I would simply disagree.

HP: It is not my place on this forum to answer such questions. The reader needs to decide what is and what is not the true gospel presented for themselves. With so many differing views being presented, some things are best left to the listener to decide by themselves on forums such as this. This is simply not to time and place to answer those questions.:thumbs:

 

Biblicist, if something is dictated, it is necessitated. If something is necessitated, such a one is not free. Man is indeed, in a sinful state, both free and necessitated in differing senses. Once he sins, nothing he can do can free him from the penalty of sin outside of Christ. He is by necessity stained with sin. Necessity did not force him into such a state, neither can sin be produced by force or coercion. Once in the state of sin, indeed nothing he can do, even if it is doing good, can free him from that state of sin apart from the blood of Jesus Christ. Still, if anything is denoted as sin in his life, and as such blameworthy, he must have had a choice to do something other than sin, but simply refused to.

Yes, lost men do come to the light, for we came. We came if we came at all, freely on our own volition. Certainly God drew us, and revealed our sin and Himself to us, but not in any forceful coercive manner. "Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Forgive me, but in your response, you still completely avoided answering the questions directly that I asked. I will ask once more.


I see your solution to this necessitated state of sin as being God regenerating the heart to be able to accept His gift. The point I am asking about is how does a regenerated heart reject the offer once regenerated? Does not a sinner have to be regenerated before he can respond to the gospel? If regeneration includes or is simultaneous with repentance and faith as I believe you have presented it, in essence you would have one falling from the grace received....... or does initial regeneration not include repentance and faith, or does regeneration not involve God's grace in salvation? Also, would you explain to us the distinction between regeneration and salvations offer? At times I see you speaking as if though when one takes place the other does as well, and at other times you appear to make distinctions between the two.

 

Forgive me Biblicist, but this should have been the first part of the last post.

HP: Absolutely, but He always acts in accordance to His nature. It is not that God cannot but that He 'will not' act in opposition to Himself.

HP: Not and remain the Loving God that He is. By faith I believe Him when he says He will never, as He stated he would not, fail to act Just and Loving.

HP: But I did not answer no.

( my answer to this question starts on the first of the last post. Sorry)

 

I read your responses carefully and you did not address the questions I asked directly in the least. Oh well. No one can force you to.

 

HP: Lets see. I take it you believe precisely as ever other Calvinist in that God has chosen some to regeneration and others He refuses to grant the very abilities necessary to accept salvation. Double predestination rules.

 

Double predestination, irresistible grace, limited atonement are clear inescapable ends of Calvinistic logic. They are unavoidable logical consequences of any such system of necessity. As hard as men try to coin their theology differently, when they start off from a basis of original sin and total moral depravity from birth, they are well on their way to the absurd conclusions mentioned above of double predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. If you want to end up in the same notions every time, the rule is simple. Just begin in the same place.

 

Biblicist, is that really what you wanted to say? I believe I would desire my thoughts and interpretations to be rational and Biblical.

 

Let me demonstrate some of the false and contradictory conclusions Biblicist has proposed to the list. He first denies that God Himself has no freedom to act in any other manner than His self dictates. He theorizes that Adam was the only one with a free will to choose between two or more possibilities involving a moral decision. He also recognizes that Adam was pure and righteous before God without the least stain of sin. For Adam to now sin, Adam has to violate the very principle he said rules. If the theory Biblicist purports is true, and Adam was without the stain of sin of sin having a pure heart of love towards God, it would have been impossible for Adam to sin, for in doing so he would have had to go against his very self, a heart of love, something Biblicist states is impossible. Remember, it is not impossible because of the nature of Adam at creation, but rather he reasons from a fixed eternal notion, the Character of God Himself and that being unchangeable. If his theory of God is correct, and man acts as he does because of this fixed principle of Gods heart, it would have been impossible under any circumstance for Adam once righteous to sin. He cannot say that the fixed principle did not apply to Adam, for again he states that the reason why is based upon an eternal unchanging principle fixed in the heart of God himself.

The error and contradictions simply multiply from there as we will see as we continue to re-examine the reality of what he presented.

Of a truth, Biblicist has committed a cardinal error in his approach to the doctrine of the will. To reason from something you do not know from Scripture or examination, i.e., the manner in which God reasons, and then use these notions, which again you have no way to test or prove other than to simply accept the conclusions of Biblicist, while rejecting any examination of conscience, something we can indeed test and know somewhat about, is to insure ones conclusions are the mere musings of a wrong approach to the doctrine of the will. It is no wonder why the theories of the will Biblicist sets forth as cardinal doctrines of truth are contradicted by Scripture, reason and experience, and his own remarks concerning other issues. He has approached a mental science in developing his doctrine of the will, refusing to carefully study and examine the best source of truth, a source we can indeed test by inner reflection.

I hope as time permits to carefully not only examine the wrong approach to establishing ones doctrine of the will, but also demonstrate how a right approach, through careful inner reflection, will free us from the contradictions and confusion Biblicist has demonstrated for the list thus far.

 

Here is yet another point to consider from the statements of Biblicist. He claims that man can create nothing because he can only will in the direction of his own heart. If that is true, neither can God create anything because He as well, we are told by Biblicist, is driven by his heart and can only do what His heart dictates.

What do you think? Disagree or agree with Biblicist? If the logic I am using is wrong, tell us why.

 

Consider yet another point. Biblicist speaks of freely choosing. Is there the least bit of freedom expressed in the 'choosing' he speaks of?

Biblicist represents sinful man as freely choosing sin and only sin due to his nature dictating sin. He then speaks of man, passive in regeneration and only active in salvation as the new nature he is granted by God now dictates his new intents and actions, but he speaks of one born again as 'freely' choosing righteousness now by his new heart 'dictating' a love for light and a hate for darkness.

If something is dictated by a force or nature, what freedom in reality is expressed? Biblicist paints a picture of man as evil by the force of his nature as a sinner and righteous as a believer by the new force of his new nature. How does this represent a moral being? Could one in reality justly be blamed or praised if in fact he could in reality not do any other than what he does? I would say that the 'freedom' expressed by Biblicist is a pure chimera, and no freedom at all.

Disagree? Tell us in your own words what freedom consists of and see if you can support your ideas by reason so plain, that a wayfaring man though a fool understand. Explain to us the difference between bondage and freedom, if there is any in your opinion.

How does a born again believer sin if in fact he can only form intents and act in agreement with his nature as Biblicist proposes, his new nature being one that loves light and hates the evil??

 

Would one venture to say that possibly the angels are moral agents? Do they have freedom of the will to choose righteousness or sin? Are they dictated by their natures or self and bound to do only that which 'self' dictates? Would the principle apply to angels that applies to man according to Biblicist, i.e., all must act only in sync with their self, and that they can create nothing? If it is a principle of truth stemming from the "self" of God, that Biblicist proposes, mandates, or is dictated by, ones self and that such a one can only act in sync with ones self or inner nature, pray tell us how the angels fell?

Does it seem a bit strange to you as it does to me that God created beings that everyone seems to agree had the ability of a free will at least at one point or another, yet the Creator God of the universe is said by some to not have any such ability?? Where did the power of free will come from? Can man possess powers, being created by God, that God Himself is void of??