just How Do the DoG Provide "sinner an excuse?"

That was my answer. I don't believe a person believe that is not regenerate. I also don't believe a person is regenerate and not have faith. I believe they both happen at the same time. I do not believe that a person can be regenerate for years before coming to Christ. I wanted to be careful in my answer as to not make it look like I believe that. Some Calvinists do, I do not.

 

I'm all for discussing that if you will leave the personal attacks out. Show me where I'm "twisting words."

Off to church, so I won't be able to answer till I get back.

 

I've played these word games with JBH in the past. He will insist that the unelect have choice, but they will always choose against God according to their nature.

So, why is it called Total "INABILITY"?

It's all word games and they know it, but will NEVER admit it.

Does a man born blind (inability) choose to be blind? Of course not, there is no choice involved whatsoever.

In the same way, Calvinists say the unelect are born spiritually dead (inability), yet say they choose to sin. Absurd.

They will say anything to rationalize their false system. They never repent of this, and you can't shame them.

 

There is one example of inability here, your inability to properly use the quote function!

You need to read Hebrews chapter 11, these men you mentioned such as Noah, Abraham, and Moses all had great faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (vs. 6)

You don't get it, because Calvinism has taught you the direct opposite of what scripture teaches, but God shows grace to those who have faith.

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Read that about a hundred times until it registers, we have access BY FAITH into grace.

Faith is like a door, you must go through the door of faith to enter into God's grace.

I don't expect you to understand, because you have been blinded by false doctrine.

 

I am not a Pelagian and you know it, I have always said it would be impossible for any man to be saved without God's gracious revelation of himself through the word of God. You KNOW that, so this is an intentional misrepresentation of me.

It is true that many non-Cal believe in Original Sin, but they do not believe fallen man unable to respond positively to the Gospel. They do not believe a man must be regenerated to believe, they believe a man must believe to be regenerated. I agree with this.

I also believe man is born flesh with lusts and desires that tempt him to sin, but I do not call this a sin nature, I call it flesh, just what the scriptures call it.

But I do not believe this nature makes one a sinner, as Jesus had this same nature.(Heb 2:16)

Sin is an act, it is the transgression of the law. It is not sinful to be tempted, Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. It is only when one willingly obeys temptation and commits an actual transgression that they sin and become sinners.

 

Much of the time "sin nature" and "flesh" are synonymous. You are trying to make one definition of the word "flesh" fit all places. It doesn't work that way. Only context can give you that definition.

What does it mean when the Bible, speaking of the Flood, says that all "flesh" was destroyed. Is it the same flesh that Paul used in Romans 7, when he said "in my flesh I find no good thing." If so, that is part of the first century gnosticism that John was writing against. Is that what you believe--all "flesh" is evil; all matter is evil?

 

Caps was for emphasis... I actually wrote it w/ a smile on my face. No yelling... I promise

 

You keep committing logical fallacies in your illustrations. The illustration of a blind man is that he is born with the nature of blindness and did not choose to have that nature. Then you apply that illustration to humans and sin and say that humans are born spiritually dead (his nature) and equate that with choosing to sin. But that is not what your illustration was about. Your illustration was about a person with a particular nature choosing that nature. Your explanation of the illustration is that the nature chooses the results of that nature (in this case choosing to sin rather than to be spiritually dead which corrolates with choosing to be born blind).

The person born blind (his nature) does not choose to be blind. That is an absurd thought that we agree. But the issue is not about choosing our nature but our nature affecting our choices.

The blind person (his nature) does not choose to be blind, but he does choose to live as a blind person (his choice). To make this illustration fit the theological issue of sin, you would basically be saying a sinner does not choose to be a sinner. But that is not the issue. The correct corollary is that a person who is born a sinner (his nature) chooses to sin (his choice).

 

No, I do not believe that the flesh is evil or depraved, although I believe the flesh can corrupt itself and become depraved.

The flesh is simply the nature we are born with, it has lusts and desires. These are not necessarily evil. It is not evil to be hungry as Jesus was when he fasted 40 days. It is not evil to desire sex as long as it is confined within marriage as God designed.

When flesh becomes sinful is when one obeys it in disobedience to God.

I believe as we feed the flesh, it becomes stronger, and our resistance to it weakens. The first time you commit sin is the most difficult, but becomes progressively easier each time we sin.

Take a young person in High School. He may be tempted to smoke marijuana by his friends. Being brought up properly, he resists for months, even years. Then one day he gives in to peer pressure and smokes. Perhaps he feels guilty, but he may also have enjoyed the experience. He resists a bit more, but two weeks later smokes some more. Soon, he is smoking every day and tries other drugs. He is becoming corrupt and depraved.

It would be the same with sex. A young person resists for a long time, but once they give in, it becomes easier and easier to commit fornication each time. They become depraved.

 

It is amazing that Christians do not understand the flesh, when the world does. All advertising targets the flesh. They show a handsome fellow with a sports car riding around with beautiful young women. This is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life all rolled in one. Fellows buy that car because they will look cool and successful, and hopefully get the girls too.

A pizza commercial appeals to the lust of the flesh, it looks delicious and filling. It appeals to the eyes, advertisers go to great care and detail to make it look beautiful.

I don't understand why I am having to explain this, I could understand this when I was a child.

 

One last thing, sin is not natural, it is unnatural. I can prove this.

When do you feel most happy? Is it not when you are doing what is right? I always told my kids growing up, that if they wanted to be happy, then do what is right, what God wants them to do.

What makes a person miserable and unhappy? SIN. This alone proves sin is unnatural. When we sin, we feel guilty, ashamed, and afraid. This is not how God designed us to be. Sin is unnatural.

Now, how can you tell when you are depraved? When those things that used to make you ashamed and guilty no longer do. When you feel happy when you are sinning and your conscience doesn't bother you, you can bet you are depraved.

 

What better excuse for unbelief is there than this:

"God was against me from the foundation of the earth. He didn't love me like he did those who are saved and he didn't grant me the ability to willingly believe His truth."

Can anyone think of a better excuse than that?

 

Yep, God hated me before I was born, he passed over me without mercy, and he is going to torment me forever for his pleasure. Like a potter, he fitted me for destruction before I even existed.

WOW.

 

It is not wise for sinful man to accuse God of being to blame for His sin.
this kind of sinful reasoning itself deserves God's holy wrath being poured out on it. All men every where are commanded to repent and believe the gospel, not to whine and make excuses for why they enjoyed a life of sin

 

You are trying to argue for an excuse that the sinner should have to go to heaven. "It is God's fault I wasn't saved. He didn't allow me to believe."

Whereas...

The issue is whether a sinner has an excuse to stay out of hell. Answer... no, his sin is the root cause of that. His excuse? "It's God's fault he didn't make me without sin." There's your excuse, although I don't think its a good one.

 

I give you my earlier analogy:

[edit] calvinism is like a computer programmer who creates a program that is unable to print anything but "Hello World!" and then deletes the program, blaming the program itself for being incapable of saying "I love you programmer." [edit] calvinism programs people to unbelief and then sends them to hell for not believing.

You say that "all men every where are commanded to repent and believe the gospel", that's like the programmer above commanding the program to say "I love you programmer", yet only programming it to say "Hello world". That's just simply absurd. [edit] calvinism is absurd and unmerciful.