• 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!

Are You a Calvinist or a Non-Cal?

Are you a Calvinist or a Non-Cal?


  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.

jbh28

Active Member
Skan does believe in total depravity. I'm waiting for his answer.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" don't you believe?

Icon stated
Adam failing the test and falling brought the consequence of this sin upon him,and us in him...it is passed on to all men....


...the tragic consequence of the fall is passed to all of us.
What part of that don't you believe?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Skan does believe in total depravity. I'm waiting for his answer.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" don't you believe?

Icon stated
What part of that don't you believe?

I believe all of it. That's describing the Fall and the wages of sin being death (Rom. 6:23). Where is the concept of Total Depravity, which I understand is the Calvinist doctrine that man has no free will, that man is a slave to his sin nature and has a total inability to come to Christ.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Skan does believe in total depravity. I'm waiting for his answer.
Well, I don't believe in the part of total depravity which suggests that God's work to bring us the powerful Gospel appeal isn't sufficient to bring reconciliation. (i.e. total inability to believe the gospel.) I affirm the doctrine of original sin and human depravity, I just don't believe scripture ever teaches the gospel isn't strong enough to enable a response. In short, I believe the gospel is more powerful than man's depravity. God's revelation is stronger than man's blindness.

And I've never denied that man's depravity was God's punishment for the Fall (as you have seemed to do). I have often said, as Paul teaches, that "God has bound all men over to disobedience..." (Rm. 11:32) In other words, I have no problem admitting that God has punished all mankind for the fall of Adam, in that he 'has bound all men over to sin and depravity,' because I'm also willing to affirm the second half of that verse (which, I believe, Calvinists attempt to explain away):

"God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jbh28

Active Member
I believe all of it. That's describing the Fall and the wages of sin being death (Rom. 6:23). Where is the concept of Total Depravity, which I understand is the Calvinist doctrine that man has no free will, that man is a slave to his sin nature and has a total inability to come to Christ.

I was referring to what Icon said about Romans 5:12. I'm pretty sure you would believe Romans 5:12. I don't think you are a denier of the Bible.

Free will: depends on what your definition of it is. If it's the ability to choose anything you want, then I would agree with free will. If you mean free will is anything else, then no.

Man is a slave to his sin: I believe Jesus taught that in John 8:34.

Total inability to come to Christ is taught in John 6:44.
 

jbh28

Active Member
Well, I don't believe in the part of total depravity which suggests that God's work to bring us the powerful Gospel appeal isn't sufficient to bring reconciliation. (i.e. total inability to believe the gospel.) I affirm the doctrine of original sin and human depravity, I just don't believe scripture ever teaches the gospel isn't strong enough to enable a response.
Which would make you not agree with "irrisitble grace" - which I think is a terrible term to give a doctrine.
And I've never denied that man's depravity was according to God's permissive will, in that it was His punishment for the Fall. I have often said, as Paul teaches, that "God has bound all men over to disobedience..." (Rm. 11:32)

I have no problem admitting that fact because I'm also willing to affirm the second half of that verse, which Calvinists attempt to explain away.

"God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

So, who decided that man would be depraved? I believe that's your question, correct?
 

Winman

Active Member
JBH wrote;

Man is a slave to his sin: I believe Jesus taught that in John 8:34.

Jesus taught that men make themselves servants to sin, he did not teach we are enslaved by a nature that causes us to sin.

Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Jesus said whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin. He DID NOT say that whosoever is a servant of sin commits sin. You turn Jesus's words around to say the exact opposite of what they truly say.

Men become slaves to sin AFTER they willingly choose to sin. This can be observed by all men everywhere, every day.

For example, is a man born enslaved to tobacco? Is a man born with a cigarette in his mouth? No. Men choose to start smoking. When they start they are not addicted or enslaved. But if they willingly choose to continue smoking, in short time they do become addicted and enslaved to tobacco. So whosoever sins becomes the servant or slave of sin.

The same with alcohol or heroin. Is a man born with a bottle of Jack Daniels in his hand? No. Men willingly choose to drink alcohol. They are not addicted or enslaved at first, but if they continue to drink they become addicted and a slave of alcohol.

Is a man born with a needle and spoon in his hands? No. Man chooses to shoot heroin willingly while not enslaved, but soon becomes addicted and a slave.

Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture and also what every man can observe as truth.
 

jbh28

Active Member
Jesus taught that men make themselves servants to sin

Ok, so you were incorrect when you stated...
First, total depravity as defined by Calvinists is a contradiction. You say man is not as bad as he can be, which shows he can choose good. If a person is truly ENSLAVED by a sin nature, he can ONLY choose to do evil. If a person finds a wallet full of money and identification, if a man is truely enslaved to sin he will always keep the money. The fact that men often return the money to the rightful owner proves they are not enslaved to sin.

Glad to see you correct yourself. Good job! Man is enslaved to sin and thus what you said was wrong about a person being enslaved to sin.
 

Winman

Active Member
Ok, so you were incorrect when you stated...

Glad to see you correct yourself. Good job! Man is enslaved to sin and thus what you said was wrong about a person being enslaved to sin.

It is Calvinism that says men are born enslaved to a sin nature, and then contradicts itself and admits unregenerate men are able to do good works.

If you are enslaved to sin, you would always choose to do the very worst thing you could do. If you found a wallet with money in it, you would be utterly compelled by your sinful nature to keep the money for yourself. The fact that even unregenerate men often do the right thing and return the wallet and money to the rightful owner proves they are not enslaved to sin.
 

jbh28

Active Member
It is Calvinism that says men are born enslaved to a sin nature, and then contradicts itself and admits unregenerate men are able to do good works.

If you are enslaved to sin, you would always choose to do the very worst thing you could do. If you found a wallet with money in it, you would be utterly compelled by your sinful nature to keep the money for yourself. The fact that even unregenerate men often do the right thing and return the wallet and money to the rightful owner proves they are not enslaved to sin.

so Jesus was wrong when he said you were enslaved to sin? You can't have it both ways Winman. Jesus says everyone that sins is a servant(or slave, bondservant) of sin. And I'm assuming you are changing your mind and no longer believe what you said in your previous post.
Men become slaves to sin AFTER they willingly choose to sin.
So is man enslaved to sin or not?
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm reminded of what Paul said...

Romans 3:10-12

10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

or Lets go to Ephesians 2

Ephesians 2:1-3

1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Which would make you not agree with "irrisitble grace"
...and the part of Total Depravity that denies the power of the gospel to accomplish its purpose. ('inability')

So, who decided that man would be depraved?
God. I thought I was clear on that point?

"God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." - Paul
 

jbh28

Active Member
...and the part of Total Depravity that denies the power of the gospel to accomplish its purpose. ('inability')


God. I thought I was clear on that point?

"God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." - Paul

So you are saying that God made everyone totally depraved. So is it God's fault that people are born totally depraved?
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
So you are saying that God made everyone totally depraved. So is it God's fault that people are born totally depraved?

JBH, here it is, one more time, as clearly as I know how to say it:

1. I don't affirm 'total depravity' in the same manner that Calvinists do because I don't believe in 'inability.' But I do affirm depravity or original sin, in that all are born enemies of God, and in need of a savior.

2. Is it God's fault that men are born enemies of God? No, it is a result of their sin, but the punishment is God's choice, yes.


Suppose my son lies and the rule that I established in our home is that a lie deserves a spanking. Is it my fault he lied? No. Is it my choice that he gets a spanking for lying? Yes.

Same with God. Is it God's fault that men sin? No. Is it God's choice to punish mankind with depravity? Yes.

Understand?
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
2. Is it God's fault that men are born enemies of God? No, it is a result of their sin, but the punishment is God's choice, yes.

Skan, can you clarify what you mean here? On one hand you say they are born enemies...yet they are enemies due to their sin.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Skan, can you clarify what you mean here? On one hand you say they are born enemies...yet they are enemies due to their sin.

I do believe in the doctrine of Original Sin, in that Adam was a representative for mankind, in the same way Christ was. The difference with me and Cals is that I am consistent in my belief because the same "all" represented by Adam is the same "all" represented by Christ.

I do believe when Adam sinned all mankind fell into a need for a savior. I don't believe a baby who dies would go to heaven without Christ's atoning work. I believe there is only way way to heaven...through Christ. Not through Christ, or dying in your own innocence. Make sense?
 

Winman

Active Member
so Jesus was wrong when he said you were enslaved to sin? You can't have it both ways Winman. Jesus says everyone that sins is a servant(or slave, bondservant) of sin. And I'm assuming you are changing your mind and no longer believe what you said in your previous post. So is man enslaved to sin or not?

I have explained this several times, and the observation of all men agrees with me.

Jesus said the person that #1 sins, is the #2 servant of sin. Please note which comes first. The choice to sin precedes becoming a servant or slave to sin.

I will repeat myself with several examples, but you will see this same pattern with all sin.

Is a man born addicted to cigarettes? No. When a man decides to smoke his first cigarette, did he begin to smoke because he was compelled by an addiction to cigarettes? No. It is when a man freely chooses to smoke and continues to smoke that he AFTERWARD becomes addicted and a slave to nicotine.

This holds true to all sin. No one is born addicted to alcohol. It is when a man freely chooses to drink and continues to drink that he becomes addicted and a slave.

No man is born with a copy of Hustler in his hand. But if a man chooses to look at pornography and continues to look at it, he can become addicted to it.

Gambling is the same, nobody is born with a deck of cards or a lottery ticket in his hands. When a man freely chooses to gamble and continues to do so he can become addicted and a slave to gambling.

Do you deny this? Tell me you deny this. This is what you have observed with your own eyes! You have never seen the contrary, not once.

If we are born a slave, addicted to sin, then we are not transgressors, but victims. There is the occasional baby born to a woman addicted to crack or heroin, and that baby is born addicted. No one considers that baby a transgressor, but a victim of his own mother's sinful behavior.

But that is rare. The vast majority of men are not born addicted to cigarettes, or alcohol, or drugs, or pornography, or gambling, but freely choose to engage in these activities while they are yet not addicted, but through continual practice become a slave and addicted to these sins.

I believe we are born into this world upright (Ecc 7:29) just as Adam and Eve were, and just like Adam and Eve we all choose to sin of our own free will and corrupt ourselves, and addict ourselves to sin thorugh continual practice.

Now, I do believe the knowledge of good and evil had an effect on mankind. I believe man received a knowledge greater than his ability to control, or rather IMPAIRS his ability to control himself. I believe the thorns and thistles represent this. Thorns and thistles do not make farming impossible, but they do make it more difficult. Man's mind and imagination was opened to have a greater conception of sin than intended. Man could now invent or imagine sin and the pleasures of sin. This tends to tempt him and cloud his judgment, making it easier to sin. Another analogy would be the effects of alcohol. A person who drinks is affected in that his judgment is impared, while his sensibilites are often increased. A man who is very drunk will act in inappropriate ways he would not normally act. I believe the knowledge of good and evil had a similar effect on man.

But we are not judged for our nature, but for our acts. We are not judged because we have the ability to sin, but only when we actually choose to sin.

I also believe man retained the ability to make a choice between good and evil as scripture itself says.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This verse shows men have the knowledge to refuse evil and choose good. Whether they do so is their own personal choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
I do believe in the doctrine of Original Sin, in that Adam was a representative for mankind, in the same way Christ was. The difference with me and Cals is that I am consistent in my belief because the same "all" represented by Adam is the same "all" represented by Christ.

I do believe when Adam sinned all mankind fell into a need for a savior. I don't believe a baby who dies would go to heaven without Christ's atoning work. I believe there is only way way to heaven...through Christ. Not through Christ, or dying in your own innocence. Make sense?

Not really :) Not understanding how one is both born an enemy and an enemy due to their sin. If they were born that way their sin is irrelevant in their being an enemy, and if it is their sin that causes them to be an enemy, that contradicts being born that way.

I do understand they are not innocent as their flesh is unfit for God's presence (hence physical death to those not spiritually dead) but I believe Christ's redemption defeated the curse and death as a whole, something an infant falls under without being guilty of sin. I also believe Adam is our representative physically bringing the curse and death to mankind, and Christ bringing the cure and life to mankind.

In addition, if we are born guilty we have the perfect built in excuse that would fall back on the question that has been asked, who's fault is it we are born guilty, ala total depravity
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Well, the church has historically distinguished the nature of sin from the guilt of sin:

"How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
 

jbh28

Active Member
I have explained this several times, and the observation of all men agrees with me.

Jesus said the person that #1 sins, is the #2 servant of sin. Please note which comes first. The choice to sin precedes becoming a servant or slave to sin.
So man is enslaved to sin.

But you said...
winman said:
If you are enslaved to sin, you would always choose to do the very worst thing you could do. If you found a wallet with money in it, you would be utterly compelled by your sinful nature to keep the money for yourself. The fact that even unregenerate men often do the right thing and return the wallet and money to the rightful owner proves they are not enslaved to sin.

You keep bouncing back and forth. Is man a slave to sin or not. I'm not speaking about before or after his first sin. I'm specifically looking at the last quote where you said "if you are enslaved to sin..." and then you also said....
Men become slaves to sin AFTER they willingly choose to sin.

Seems you keep going back and forth from one post to another.

Let me see if I have it down.

According to winman:
1. If you are enslaved to sin, you would always choose to do the very worst thing you could do.
2. Men become slaves to sin AFTER they willingly choose to sin.
3. men after they sin will always choose to do the very worst thing they can do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top