A Basic Question to all Calvinists

You know that I have given them. You know it is not heresy.

This is not a distinction the Bible makes.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here what the Apostle Paul has to say on this. "for being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil..." (Romans 9:11). Here Paul shows that there is a time when childern have not committed any sinful acts, or done any good. To arge otherwise is nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well THAT should be easy enough to check out. Lets all go to our Bible and SEE what the text said .. maybe Icthus did not quote Rom 9:11 just as Larry asserts -- or maybe -- just maybe -- Pastor Larry has gone out on another one of his "innexplicable and indefensible limbs"??

Hmmm. The text "Says" -- the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad,

But Pastor Larry "says" -- "That is not what Paul said

Is there any blatant contradiction that Calvinists will not publish for all to read?

The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The idea that the Bible "does not recognize" a sinner that "has done neither good nor evil" was refuted in Romans 9:11 " for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, " is "obvious".

What is interesting is that this same "distinction" between the SINNER and the deeds that are done "good or evil" is seen in BOTH Romans 2 and in 2 Cor 5.

I like the one in 2Cor 5 best --

The speculation that these clear statements "don't exist" in scripture - is debunked.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Icthus,

I gave you two examples of two God ordained sinful acts earlier in this thread and asked you how you explained the text if God never ordains sin. You never answered.

I'm beginning to think you can't answer. You can only dismiss what others say, but you can't give any explanations of your own.

 

No, of course not.

Well, 1) I am not you, 2) you have not done what you say you would do, 3) I have done exactly what you say you would do. In this forum there are hundreds of posts from me that answer your question. You were involved in many of those conversations. For you to pretend like you haven't seen them is disingenuous at best.

Not at all. I have answered your question on this topic way more than is reasonable to expect. You know that. I don't know why you are asking again. You have already been given the answers.

Yes, that is what Scripture teaches. We are sinners in Adam. That is the only way that we can be righteous in Christ. If you actually study Romans 5, you see that Paul is describing the MO of sin and righteousness. He says that we become righteous in the same way that we become sinners. If you become a sinner by your own acts of sin, then you have to become righteous by your own acts of righteousness. Fortunately, you are wrong, even though you don't believe it. And you can have salvation anyway.

Those are not the only sins. Sin is any lack of conformity to God's perfection.

No, I don't think so. And if you check, I bet they all agree with me on this.

Because of God's grace, the same way that anyone goes to heaven.

 

Honesty and integrity should compel you to admit that you have taken my words out of context. If you had read what was being talked about, you know that Icthus was using that verse to argue a point. I showed that Paul was not talking about the point Icthus was trying to make.

Why is honesty and integrity such a problem in here? Why do you and other continually use unethical means to try to make your arguments? That is completely unacceptable. If you use my words, use them as I used them. Do not make up your own ideas from my words. Be honest. That is not too much to ask.

And above all, when you are not practicing honesty and integrity, do not sign your post with "In Christ." That is a violation of hte third commandment and we can all agree that is sin.

 

In a little bit of a freudian faux pas, it appears that Bob has made my point. He admits that the Bible recognizes sinners who have not done good or bad. Exactly what I said, and it refutes what Icthus said. A person is a sinner before they know that they have done good or bad. We sinned in Adam.

My suspicion is that Bob didn't think about what he was saying since I konw he didn't want to agree with me about what Paul said. But who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth. Since Bob stumbled on the truth that the Bible says sinners have no necessarily done good or evil, I will accept that.

If you read what I said, I said that the Bible does not recognize a distinction between "sinful" and "sinners." Babies are born sinners in Adam.

I am not convinced you understand the distinction being made.

Icthus is trying to say that people are not sinners until they choose to sin. The Bible says that we all sinned in Adam and are sinners at conception. There is no distinction between "sinful" and "sinners" as Icthus tried to make.

BTW, 2 Cor 5 is totally unrelated. That is about the end time judgment.

Who speculated that? What are you referring to?

 

Well, yes, I do. It means those things God has determined will happen, either by his permission or by his agency.

It's not me, but you who has a problem with the definition of the word ordained, remember? I looked it up in my Oxford English Dictionary where it tells me that "of Diety or a supernatural power" it means "to decree or predestine or determine."

Because ordained doesn't mean "made" in the sense of "forced". And because scripture says it and I gave you the texts!

Lets narrow this thing down to only one text, then, to make it simpler for you. Acts 4: 27 and 28, for instance:

for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,  to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Given that ordain is a nice little synonym for predestine, according to my OED, we can just stick the word "ordain" in there instead. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel gathered together to do whatever God's plan had ordained to take place. Right?

Question for you: (Please stop dodging the questions. It makes it look like you don't know how to answer them so you are avoiding them.)

Were those acts that were ordained (or predestined) for them sinful acts?

 

That is very gracious of you - but you are wrong about my not wanting to agree with your view that in Adam all sinned and that we are sinners by virtue of our inherited sinful nature EVEN though in fact we have DONE NO sinning!

My point is that the Bible DOES recognize a distinction between the fact that we ARE sinners at birth but HAVE NOT done actual sinning yet.

The idea of sinners doing "good and evil" as we see in 2Cor 5 or "having not DONE any good or evil" as in Roman 9:11 is exactly my point.

It DOES see "that level" of distinction. But I do agree with you that the sinful nature makes us sinners from birth it is just that there is no truth to the myth that because of that alone - the Bible can not distinguish between a sinner ACTUALLY sinning and a sinner simply BEING a sinner a human with a inherited sinful nature - given to them from Adam.

I agree with that. I do not agree that the Bible does not recognize a distinction between a "sinner" and the SINS that the sinner ACTUALLY commits. So it will show us a sinner who has done NO sinning (Rom 9:11) and ALSO show us sinners that have done BOTH "Good and evil" deeds.

As you may have guessed I need to clearly recognize that last point in 2Cor 5 so that I can have a clear and logical view of Daniel 7.

Yes I saw that. It is not the first time I have differed with my brethren on some point. I just did not want to make too much of it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is another one for you. Most of my Arminian brethren would agree with OSAS along with Calvinists. Calvinists on the other hand will argue that an Arminian who accepts OSAS is being inconsistent because they are insisting on free will BEFORE salvation but then removing it AFTERwards as if the SAVED person has even LESS free will than before coming to Christ!

I agree with the Calvinist on that particular complaint.

Contrary to some Calvinists on this board - I do not follow the rule of "differ with the other side at all costs". My position is much more a doctrinal viewpoint than - differing with person-A or even "always object to Calvinist ideas".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I didn't say you didn't agree with me about man being a sinner before he commits knowing sin. I didn't say you disagree with me at all costs. I said you disagree with me about what Paul said in 9:11. Paul was pointing out that God's choice of people to salvation (cf. vv. 1-10, vv. 12-11:36) has nothing to do with what a person does, whether good or bad. It is not a choice that involves respect of people and their choices (since they are all sinful). It is a choice based in God's good pleasure. That is what you disagree with.

 

Icthus,

I was hoping that for once you'd answer one of my questions. I'm beginning to think you don't have answers.

Go up about 4 responses from this one and there's my question.

 

Hmmmm.....interesting that return questions are always avoided.

 

Icthus,

Why are you not responding to the questions in this thread, and then going on and on in another one about how no one has ever posted scripture that says that God ordains sin?

Just go back one page, and up a few posts.

Let's see if you've got any fire at all behind all that smoke.

 

Ahem......

 

If Calvinism is true, then God did ordain our sins...in which case we would not be responsible. Therefore Calvinism being true has about as much probability as me becoming President. And I'm a Canadian.