Defending the truth against the primary so called "proof texts" against Calvinism

[The Archangel]

I do not deny that man has an evil heart, but the scriptures do not say man is born that way. In fact, in Genesis 8:21 God says, "for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his YOUTH".

Now if you look up the word "youth" you will never see it to mean a small child, in fact it is almost always used of a young man in his teens, or even older. Look and see for yourself if you don't believe me.

Wrong.

If you define "Youth" with an English dictionary, you can conclude what you have. However, as we all know, the Bible was not written in English.

The word "Youth" in Genesis 8:21 is from the root נער. This root is also used of Moses in Exodus 2:6 where he, as a baby, was crying.

So, again, the Hebrew can mean youth (as in not a baby) but it can also mean baby.

You are incorrect in making the absolute statement that you made. Your statement is not supported by the underlying Hebrew.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

You know what they say, tenth time's a charm...or is that third...

No, I have been saying for months that we are flesh, the very term the scriptures use and people call me a heretic, while they use the term "sin nature" that is not found in scriptures once. Go figure.

The scriptures speak of the "infirmity" of our flesh which means weakness. Jesus said, "the spirit indeed is willing, BUT THE FLESH IS WEAK".

Now there is the problem right there. Man has a conscience, man has the law written on his heart. Go into the deepest jungle where men have never heard the scriptures, and yet men have laws of conduct. They know it is wrong to lie, to steal, or to kill, etc... But the flesh is weak. The flesh pulls and tugs at the spirit of man. Natural man is weak and gives in to the flesh. When we do so we sin.

Babies are flesh and have desires just like us. These are not evil, they cry when hungry, or when they need to be changed, or when they are cutting teeth.

We come into this world gratifying our flesh. That is all we know at first. However, we establish a nature or habit of gratifying ourselves, a selfishness. As we get older we come to know right from wrong and these desires or lusts begin to come into conflict with what we know is right conduct. This is when we begin to sin. A child will fight for a toy, for example.

Our desires are not sinful when we behave within God's laws. But when we step outside these laws to gratify our desires, this is when we sin. If we know it is wrong to steal, but take a friend's toy, then we have sinned. This does start early, and all men sin.

And all of this is plain observation and easy to see and understand.

 

[glfredrick]

In the Scriptures, death is as a result of sin. God promised both physical and spiritual death when Adam sinned. All of humanity has inherited the curse of Adam, and Paul says, "In Adam all have sinned..."

We die because of our sin. Babies die because of their sin, both in and out of the womb. If they were truly innocent and sinless as is being suggested by Winman, they would not die because they would be righteous.

Wish it were so... But alas, they are not free from sin.

Clearly, those who suggest that infants are not imputed with Adam's sin are drifting into Pelagianism:

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

 

[glfredrick]

No, I have been saying for months that we are flesh, the very term the scriptures use and people call me a heretic, while they use the term "sin nature" that is not found in scriptures once. Go figure.

The scriptures speak of the "infirmity" of our flesh which means weakness. Jesus said, "the spirit indeed is willing, BUT THE FLESH IS WEAK".

Now there is the problem right there. Man has a conscience, man has the law written on his heart. Go into the deepest jungle where men have never heard the scriptures, and yet men have laws of conduct. They know it is wrong to lie, to steal, or to kill, etc... But the flesh is weak. The flesh pulls and tugs at the spirit of man. Natural man is weak and gives in to the flesh. When we do so we sin.

Babies are flesh and have desires just like us. These are not evil, they cry when hungry, or when they need to be changed, or when they are cutting teeth.

We come into this world gratifying our flesh. That is all we know at first. However, we establish a nature or habit of gratifying ourselves, a selfishness. As we get older we come to know right from wrong and these desires or lusts begin to come into conflict with what we know is right conduct. This is when we begin to sin. A child will fight for a toy, for example.

Our desires are not sinful when we behave within God's laws. But when we step outside these laws to gratify our desires, this is when we sin. If we know it is wrong to steal, but take a friend's toy, then we have sinned. This does start early, and all men sin.

And all of this is plain observation and easy to see and understand.

Suggesting "flesh" instead of "sin" does not get you so easily off the hook.

Paul writes this, which clearly refutes your position:

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another."--Galatians 5:16-26

It is not until our "flesh" is crucified with Christ and we are "reborn" that we have any hope whatsoever!

 

[Winman]

In the Scriptures, death is as a result of sin. God promised both physical and spiritual death when Adam sinned. All of humanity has inherited the curse of Adam, and Paul says, "In Adam all have sinned..."

We die because of our sin. Babies die because of their sin, both in and out of the womb. If they were truly innocent and sinless as is being suggested by Winman, they would not die because they would be righteous.

Wish it were so... But alas, they are not free from sin.

Clearly, those who suggest that infants are not imputed with Adam's sin are drifting into Pelagianism:

Could you please tell me which book, chapter, and verse says "in Adam all have sinned"?

I can't seem to find that verse in my Bible, help me out.

 

[David Lamb]

Wrong.

If you define "Youth" with an English dictionary, you can conclude what you have. However, as we all know, the Bible was not written in English.

The word "Youth" in Genesis 8:21 is from the root נער. This root is also used of Moses in Exodus 2:6 where he, as a baby, was crying.

So, again, the Hebrew can mean youth (as in not a baby) but it can also mean baby.

You are incorrect in making the absolute statement that you made. Your statement is not supported by the underlying Hebrew.

The Archangel

Exactly! And even if you did 'define "Youth" with an English dictionary,' those English dictionaries I've just looked at give one meaning of the English word "youth" as being "the quality or condition of being young"; "youth" is not necessarily restricted to those in their teens.

 

[webdog]

Wrong.

If you define "Youth" with an English dictionary, you can conclude what you have. However, as we all know, the Bible was not written in English.

The word "Youth" in Genesis 8:21 is from the root נער. This root is also used of Moses in Exodus 2:6 where he, as a baby, was crying.

So, again, the Hebrew can mean youth (as in not a baby) but it can also mean baby.

You are incorrect in making the absolute statement that you made. Your statement is not supported by the underlying Hebrew.

The Archangel

I refer to my 3 year old as my baby. Point being it's a child. The irony is it's not from conception. What qualifies how youth is described is "the imagination of the heart". This clearly is not a baby.

 

[jbh28]

No, I have been saying for months that we are flesh, the very term the scriptures use and people call me a heretic, while they use the term "sin nature" that is not found in scriptures once. Go figure.

A term doesn't have to be in the Bible for us to use it. "trinity" "Bible" "rapture"

 

[Skandelon]

Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but I didn't take the time to go back and read the entire thread.

Can someone explain to me why Jesus would say, "I can guarantee this truth: Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." If indeed children are in the exact same "totally depraved" condition as adults?

 

[glfredrick]

Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but I didn't take the time to go back and read the entire thread.

Can someone explain to me why Jesus would say, "I can guarantee this truth: Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." If indeed children are in the exact same "totally depraved" condition as adults?

I would suggest that children have "an innocence" (which is not the same as saying that they are "innocent") about the way they see the world and the way they see God. They have yet to be taught that their innate understanding of God is wrong by sinners who have (Rom 1) lived lives in opposition to God and are "given over" to further their sin.

Tell a child about Jesus and he or she simply says, "I believe." Of course, they do the same with the Easter bunny, Santa Clause, etc., but in essence, that is what Jesus seemed to be saying. Note that He also said that no one comes to the Father except that the Father draws him, and that we need to "repent" of our sin. Jesus did not qualify those statements by saying "everyone except children" needs to repent or the Father only draws those who are not children, for children are already drawn. To say that would be to negate large portions of Scripture that say otherwise.

To make a special category for children, babies, unborn, etc., and to say that they are unlike the rest of humanity -- sinners who are born dead in their sin and trespasses -- is to make God a liar, and as bad, to suggest (and how horrific this thought!) that simply killing children before they have a chance to gain a consciousness of their sin is the single best way to evangelize the world. Was that not what the prophets of Baal did in the land of Canaan -- for which God judged them with a death sentence?

 

[Skandelon]

I would suggest that children have "an innocence" (which is not the same as saying that they are "innocent") about the way they see the world and the way they see God.

Why? If they are born just as deaf, blind and dead as Total Depravity teaches, why do you suppose they "see the world/God" differently? What is "different" about them that God would point to them as an example?

They have yet to be taught that their innate understanding of God is wrong

So if men are born with an "innate correct understanding of God," as you have just indicated, why do you suppose "nothing in a sinner is acceptable or pleasing to God" from birth? (as the doctrine of total depravity teaches)

Would not a child's "correct understanding of God," prior to its being marred by sinful man, be "pleasing" or "acceptable?" And what leads you to believe that such understanding couldn't lead to simple child like faith in God as is often experienced in children of believers?

Tell a child about Jesus and he or she simply says, "I believe." Of course, they do the same with the Easter bunny, Santa Clause, etc., but in essence, that is what Jesus seemed to be saying.

Oh, so he is just saying we should be more 'gullible?' Why? Wouldn't the effectual work of regeneration make them believe in God without being gullible...or "childlike?"

Note that He also said that no one comes to the Father except that the Father draws him,

We all agree with that.

and that we need to "repent" of our sin. Jesus did not qualify those statements by saying "everyone except children" needs to repent or the Father only draws those who are not children, for children are already drawn. To say that would be to negate large portions of Scripture that say otherwise.

I don't think we have a problem with that either. Surely even a child needs forgiveness.

To make a special category for children, babies, unborn, etc., and to say that they are unlike the rest of humanity -- sinners who are born dead in their sin and trespasses -- is to make God a liar

I'm not making that argument. I'm simply pointing to the biblical difference between one who has become hardened and one who has not.

Paul explains it saying, "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Calvinism makes the mistake, IMO, of putting everyone in the "hardened" category from birth, when clearly Paul says they 'become calloused' and "otherwise they might see, hear and repent." (which wouldn't be possible in a Totally depraved world) He even contrasts the Jews who have become calloused with the Gentiles who have not..."they will listen."

and as bad, to suggest (and how horrific this thought!) that simply killing children before they have a chance to gain a consciousness of their sin is the single best way to evangelize the world. Was that not what the prophets of Baal did in the land of Canaan -- for which God judged them with a death sentence?

I don't know of anyone making that argument.

 

[glfredrick]

Skandelon, did you want an answer or an excuse to argue?

I gave you a reasoned answer. You offered no answer, just more argument.

What's your answer, and if you have one, why did you post a question -- oh, except to start another argument.

I'm starting to see a pattern here... It all wraps around "start an argument" and we could add, "with a Calvinist." :wavey:

Asthe Scriptures say:

Prov 26:21 [As] coals [are] to burning coals, and wood to fire; so [is] a contentious man to kindle strife.

1Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

[webdog]

Typical...when there is no answer to give that makes sense, attack the character of the one asking the question.

Skan did an excellent job point by point of showing the "answer" to be quite flawed. Deal with his reply in the manner he did, without the ad hominem.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, did you want an answer or an excuse to argue?

So, now if anyone doesn't agree with your answer and makes an argument against your answer, this is the response they can expect?

I gave you a reasoned answer. You offered no answer, just more argument.

Oh, ok everyone shut down the Baptist Debate Forum because all of the questions have been given a "reasoned answer" and there is no point in continuing the discussions. Come now, friend, be reasonable. I think we all know why you have this reaction to this particular argument, don't we? I was a Calvinist once...I know what is a difficult question for you.

What's your answer, and if you have one, why did you post a question -- oh, except to start another argument.

Again, the double standard comes out when someone feels backed into a corner? As if you or any Calvinist here haven't asked difficult questions to draw out a strong point of contention? That is called debate. The questioning part is specifically referred to as "cross examination." I didn't know the CX portion was to be followed by universal agreement and songs, I'll let the moderators know.

Asthe Scriptures say:

Prov 26:21 [As] coals [are] to burning coals, and wood to fire; so [is] a contentious man to kindle strife.

1Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I'll remember these when the Calvinists here dare to disagree with Webdog, Winman or anyone else's answers to questions from this point forward.

This avoidance tactic is so clearly obvious that any objective reader will see right through it. When you care to have a civil discussion/debate about our differing views I'll be glad to pick up where we left off. Until then you can expect me to hold you to the standards you have set in this post.

 

[Skandelon]

To make it easier, just answer these questions:

So if men are born with an "innate correct understanding of God," as you have just indicated, why do you suppose "nothing in a sinner is acceptable or pleasing to God" from birth? (as the doctrine of total depravity teaches)

Would not a child's "correct understanding of God," prior to its being marred by sinful man, be "pleasing" or "acceptable?" And what leads you to believe that such understanding couldn't lead to simple child like faith in God as is often experienced in children of believers?

 

[Winman]

Suggesting "flesh" instead of "sin" does not get you so easily off the hook.

Paul writes this, which clearly refutes your position:

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another."--Galatians 5:16-26

It is not until our "flesh" is crucified with Christ and we are "reborn" that we have any hope whatsoever!

Did you notice it said WORKS of the flesh? We are not judged because of our nature, we are judged because of our works, our deeds, the things DONE in the body (2 Cor 5:10).

Tell me, do you know of any newborn baby that has committed any of those WORKS shown in Galatians 5?

 

[Winman]

Futhermore, the law does not hold us accountable for our potential, only our actions.

I have the potential to rob a bank and so do you. Would that make it just for the law to arrest us and charge us with bank robbery when we have not done so? Why, that would be absurd!

But that is exactly what you believe, that God judges a newborn child as a sinner when he is incapable of doing either good or bad. That is lunacy.

 

[Havensdad]

Futhermore, the law does not hold us accountable for our potential, only our actions.

I have the potential to rob a bank and so do you. Would that make it just for the law to arrest us and charge us with bank robbery when we have not done so? Why, that would be absurd!

But that is exactly what you believe, that God judges a newborn child as a sinner when he is incapable of doing either good or bad. That is lunacy.

Not at all. I, of course, do not believe God sends babies to hell, since the scriptures say sin is not counted where there is no law, however; that does not change the fact that by their nature they (and we) are vile, corrupt things deserving of God's wrath.

According to you, I suppose the vast number of people who will be in Heaven, not because Christ's blood covered their sins, but because of their own merit? Does that not seem problematic to you?

Also, why is it that people always cry about the unfairness of Adam's sin being imputed to us, as our representative, but no one ever whines about the unfairness of Christ's righteousness being applied to us believers (as our representative)?

 

[MB]

MB... I'm thinking that you got some quotes twisted... I would never even suggest that we "proof text" Calvinism. I advocate a total biblical picture for the doctrine, and I am a supporter.

Come on admit it. The truth is you can't prove Calvinism because it isn't in scripture.
MB

 

[Amy.G]

Also, why is it that people always cry about the unfairness of Adam's sin being imputed to us, as our representative, but no one ever whines about the unfairness of Christ's righteousness being applied to us believers (as our representative)?

Good point. I don't want to be treated fairly or else I would get what I deserved. I prefer grace.