Freedom (Free Will),Free Will Stopped at the Garden

[webdog]

I can't speak for others here, but I've always affirmed the doctrine of Original Sin, but I deny the Calvinistic teaching of "Total Inability." There is a distinction.

Original sin teaches we are born enemies of God, but doesn't attempt to deny that God's appeal to be reconciled is somehow insufficient to bring reconciliation.

I'm curious how you reconcile the two together. How does a human infant, fetus, zygote, cytoblastic enemy of God answer such an appeal?

 

[12strings]

Now, maybe the Spirit is doing some extra inward work at the same moment the gospel is being preached so as to make it powerful, that's fine, but to be consistent biblically the power is the Gospel, which IS a WORK of the HOLY SPIRIT. Make sense? I just refuse to divorce the gospel from it's power. The gospel is the means God has chosen to accomplish a spiritual inward working and I know we can't fully understand that, but what we can know is that the gospel has power, because the bible say so. Okay?

...except you believe that this Holy Spirit enabled, powerful Gospel does not always convince the person to turn to God. They can, and most do, resist it, right? (And Those who have never heard the Gospel are denied this Holy Spirit Power, without which they are unable to come to Christ?) :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

...except you believe that this Holy Spirit enabled, powerful Gospel does not always convince the person to turn to God.

Of course I don't. Because I affirm they have a free will by which they can choose to accept of reject God's appeal to be reconciled. It is powerful enough to accomplish its purpose, which is NOT to save people despite what they want to do (that would be the Calvinistic premise which I've rejected). It's purpose is to make the appeal to be reconciled, by which the natural man, the enemy, may freely respond (and be without any excuse for his rejection).

See the difference:

Calvinists presume the purpose of the Gospel is to effectually save a select few. But that means the gospel is ineffective in most cases because it does nothing for the non-elect who hear it.

Arminians believe the purpose of the Gospel is to make a genuine appeal for enemies to be reconciled, thus enabling a RESPONSE. Even if that response is unbelief, the gospel has effectively accomplished its purpose to make that appeal.

(And Those who have never heard the Gospel are denied this Holy Spirit Power, without which they are unable to come to Christ?) :smilewinkgrin:

Those who don't hear is another subject, which I have referred to HERE.

 

[JesusFan]

...except you believe that this Holy Spirit enabled, powerful Gospel does not always convince the person to turn to God. They can, and most do, resist it, right? (And Those who have never heard the Gospel are denied this Holy Spirit Power, without which they are unable to come to Christ?) :smilewinkgrin:[/QUOTE

]


We cals believe that God MUST do an effectual application of the grace of the Cross of Chrsit towards those who are saved, as the Gospel WILL do its accomplished task, in that the elect will hear and respond by faith...


2 BIG problems with arminiam views here on this topic...

WHERE is it said that we each have "inherit faith" in us to respond to God?

IF all of us are spiritually dead to the things of God, IF Gospel is power of God, why just SOME only get faith to believe?
For if it is the agent God uses to produce faith to believe, why just SOME get saved, wouldn't God grant ALL same faith?

 

[Skandelon]

I'm curious how you reconcile the two together. How does a human infant, fetus, zygote, cytoblastic enemy of God answer such an appeal?

An infant can't, but neither can an infant put his faith in Christ (which is the stated means by which Grace is applied). Unless you believe an infant is not in need of grace, you must trust that God's justice (through Christ's provision) covers those in infancy or 'ignorance.'

And if a child is born "innocent" and dies could it be argued that there are two ways into heaven? One through your own innocence and another through Christ? Also could it be argued that any child could have been sacrificed for the atonement of sin?

 

[JesusFan]

An infant can't, but neither can an infant put his faith in Christ (which is the stated means by which Grace is applied). Unless you believe an infant is not in need of grace, you must trust that God's justice (through Christ's provision) covers those in infancy or 'ignorance.'

either God somehow grants faith to baby to believe in jesus, which I do NOT hold to...


OR

baby born in innocent state, no origianl sin, not born a sinner, choose to later on than a sinner...

NOPE

OR

baby born a sinner, God decided to elect them in Christ, decides to apply effectually the Grace of the Cross to 'cover" the sin of the baby..

And if a child is born "innocent" and dies could it be argued that there are two ways into heaven? One through your own innocence and another through Christ? Also could it be argued that any child could have been sacrificed for the atonement of sin?[/QUOTE

]


The ones hear who argue that there is NO original Sin, and that we become sinful when we choose to actually start sinning, might hold to baby as being innocent OR taht God does not save them at all, or JUST the elect ones get saved OR

its the way that I described above!

 

[webdog]

An infant can't, but neither can an infant put his faith in Christ (which is the stated means by which Grace is applied). Unless you believe an infant is not in need of grace, you must trust that God's justice (through Christ's provision) covers those in infancy or 'ignorance.'

If the Bible maintains those who are enemies of God (sinners) are saved by grace through faith (never sans), how can there be a silent dispensation of salvation? This doesn't seem consistent.

And if a child is born "innocent" and dies could it be argued that there are two ways into heaven?

I don't think so, if anything salvation sans faith would fit this model.

One through your own innocence and another through Christ?

Its not a matter of innocense but of guilt or non. Those not guilty of violating God's law (sin) are deemed not guilty. We are not innocent, but will be found not guilty on judgement day as I believe infants will. Christ's blood still covers the infants nature / cursed flesh.

Also could it be argued that any child could have been sacrificed for the atonement of sin?

Not following you here

 

[Skandelon]

What do you mean by "sans?"

 

[webdog]

What do you mean by "sans?"

The word means without or absence of. Just shorter to type on a little phone

 

[Skandelon]

If the Bible maintains those who are enemies of God (sinners) are saved by grace through faith (never sans), how can there be a silent dispensation of salvation? This doesn't seem consistent.

I'm not following you here? What do you mean about a silent dispensation of salvation? This is new terminology to me.

I don't think so, if anything salvation sans faith would fit this model. Its not a matter of innocense but of guilt or non.

What is the difference in 'not guilty' and 'innocence' in your view?

Those not guilty of violating God's law (sin) are deemed not guilty.

Ok, so then why would they not be considered innocent?

Christ's blood still covers the infants nature / cursed flesh.

I agree, but not because they are innocent/not guilty, but because of Christ blood alone. Why would Christ's blood need to cover someone who is not guilty? I'm not following the argument, I guess.

Not following you here

I'm just saying that if a "innocent" sacrifice is all that is required for the atonement of sin, then was Jesus uniquely qualified for this job, or could have any child filled that role?

 

[webdog]

I'm not following you here? What do you mean about a silent dispensation of salvation? This is new terminology to me.

ok. I think we will both agree that Scripture teaches sinners are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This being the case, if an infant cannot exhibit saving faith (given they are sinners), the only options are: all babies perish, babies somehow have faith, or they are saved in some other way the Bible doesn't tell us, the last what I was touching on since the second is impossible.

What is the difference in 'not guilty' and 'innocence' in your view?

If we were to commit a crime, we would stand before a judge and declare ourselves (or our representative would declare us) guilty or not guilty "by reason of...", never innocent. Guilt takes premeditation, and to be deemed a sinner means one has consciously violated God's law in the same manner Adam was deemed a sinner.

Ok, so then why would they not be considered innocent?

they have a nature bent on and filled with sin unlike Adam who was created truly innocent.

I agree, but not because they are innocent/not guilty, but because of Christ blood alone. Why would Christ's blood need to cover someone who is not guilty? I'm not following the argument, I guess.

we tend to look at Christ's death in terms of only the atonement when the scope is much broader and universal. His death released the curse on the universe, defeating sin and death, both which affect all creation including infants.

I'm just saying that if a "innocent" sacrifice is all that is required for the atonement of sin, then was Jesus uniquely qualified for this job, or could have any child filled that role?

ok, I got it.
Only a perfect sacrifice could do it, meaning only Christ was sufficient.

 

[Skandelon]

ok. I think we will both agree that Scripture teaches sinners are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This being the case, if an infant cannot exhibit saving faith (given they are sinners), the only options are: all babies perish, babies somehow have faith, or they are saved in some other way the Bible doesn't tell us, the last what I was touching on since the second is impossible.

Agreed.

they have a nature bent on and filled with sin unlike Adam who was created truly innocent.

Agreed. And I take that as the doctrine of Original Sin, don't you?

we tend to look at Christ's death in terms of only the atonement when the scope is much broader and universal. His death released the curse on the universe, defeating sin and death, both which affect all creation including infants.

I agree, thus the problem of Original Sin has its solution. I'm not sure where we disagree???

 

[Skandelon]

This short movie clip gives a great explanation of what Total Depravity looks like and makes a poignant observation about political cultural in the process.

 

[webdog]

Agreed.

If agreed, and you believe an infant is a guilty sinner, which of the three apply (all babies perish, babies somehow have faith, or they are saved in some other way the Bible doesn't tell us)?

Agreed. And I take that as the doctrine of Original Sin, don't you?

Not as the widely defined and accepted view as developed by Augustine.

I agree, thus the problem of Original Sin has its solution. I'm not sure where we disagree???

Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but if you hold to Augustinian Original Sin we do not agree.

 

[Skandelon]

If agreed, and you believe an infant is a guilty sinner, which of the three apply (all babies perish, babies somehow have faith, or they are saved in some other way the Bible doesn't tell us)?

The last one...but I'd affirm as you have that its by Grace and Christ's work still.

Not as the widely defined and accepted view as developed by Augustine.

Well, many have equated Total Depravity with Original Sin confounding the issue, so I think that is where we differ. I'm just attempt to pluck out the truth from the confounded dogma. I do believe Adam was our representative in the Garden, but Christ was our representative on the Cross. I think where Calvinists err is they think Adam represented all of mankind and Christ only a selected few.

Paul never taught this.

 

[webdog]

The last one...but I'd affirm as you have that its by Grace and Christ's work still.

The problem I have with the last one is it opens the door for many different ways of salvation including universalism (afterall, if the Bible is silent on the salvation of this one group of humanity who's to say it is not silent on others, even post death?). The Bible is clear that those who are guilty of violating God's law require Christ's blood being applied via faith, not to mention the many passages telling us sinning gives birth to death.

 

[Skandelon]

Web, I don't believe there is any other means of salvation except for through Christ atoning work...I just appealed to the last one regarding the unknown means of application since they don't express faith. Plus, earlier you said, "Christ's blood still covers the infants nature / cursed flesh." So, I'm not sure which it is? Is Christ's blood needed to cover infants or not? You seem to indicate here that only those "violating God's law require Christ's blood?" ?

 

[webdog]

Christ's blood will redeem the infant's flesh in the resurrection, but the infant's spirit did not die due to not violating His law.

 

[JesusFan]

Christ's blood will redeem the infant's flesh in the resurrection, but the infant's spirit did not die due to not violating His law.

God sees the infant though as being found "in Adam""

he partakes of the spiritual death Adam received in the garden from God...

infant cannot place faith in Christ, so ONLY 3 real options for you here...

Infants go to hell
God grants them faith somehow
God effectually applies Grace to their behalf as under "special circumstances!"

 

[webdog]

God sees the infant though as being found "in Adam""

...yet Scripture states over and over we are dead in OUR sins.

he partakes of the spiritual death Adam received in the garden from God...

infant cannot place faith in Christ, so ONLY 3 real options for you here...

Infants go to hell
God grants them faith somehow
God effectually applies Grace to their behalf as under "special circumstances!"

...and this is the problem with starting with a false presupposition, you arrive at faulty conclusions.

You forgot D....an infant is not spiritually dead until sinning as Adam and every other human since.