• 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!

"given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The scripture is not to teach what a unbeliever can't do, but what a believer is to do.
Oh,so you are setting up some rules --some guidelines, where the Scriptures are not to teach in certain areas that you will not allow?

You like Spurgeon, --hopefully not just one of his plethora of sermons.
Well then, he preached a sermon called "Human Inability" back in 1858. Here's a line:"The nature of man thus renders him unable to come to Christ." Do you disagree? If so,why? CHS was being very biblical.
If they do repent they will not live and they will die in their sins.
I hope you made a mistake and meant to say :"do not" repent...
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't write to convert them to the truth as that takes the supernatural power of God. I write to simply expose their falsehoods to those who are really seeking truth and reading the debates.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::applause::thumbsup:You have exposed the error all through this thread.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Inspector Javert

This is evil.

I agree:thumbsup:For someone to ignore the fine teaching offered by biblicist and to oppose the truth each day is evil.

I would say that you are better than this Icon.....

I am not the issue here IJ.....opposing truth each day is evil. let's view the text;

9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief,
Paul saw Elymas was working to oppose the truth and turn people from it.
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
thou child of the devil
,
here he is identified as such...because of sorcery.however satan means opposer....
thou enemy of all righteousness,

Biblicist offers truth...and this is the responses you and your friends offer;
Baloney
But that is how nearly all Calvinists speak, out of both sides of their mouth. And Biblicist is no exception to this.
Wow, ten thousand words, and every bit of it is rubbish.

Like I said before, don't go into sales, you will starve.
You wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and introduced itself to you.
That, sir is stupid.
It's just that we think it's full of crap!!!
So Biblicist is all wet and does not understand scripture.



wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Paul said this to a person who tried to turn many away from the truth...that is evil.If someone does that today...i do not see a difference.

Biblicist has exposed all three of you as lacking anything on these verses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

psalms109:31

Active Member
Oh,so you are setting up some rules --some guidelines, where the Scriptures are not to teach in certain areas that you will not allow?

You can't change an unbeliever only a believer the bible is teaching what a believer can do. I am a Spurgeon-Calvinist type and I truly see many Calvinist focus on what an unbeliever can't do when we should be focus on believers what they can be changed into. Trying to win believers to this point. You want to focus on that and that's what you think is the main focus is on then that is your choice. The scripture to me focus on believers and what they are to do. I will stick with my statement you can do what you want to.

You like Spurgeon, --hopefully not just one of his plethora of sermons.
Well then, he preached a sermon called "Human Inability" back in 1858. Here's a line:"The nature of man thus renders him unable to come to Christ." Do you disagree? If so,why? CHS was being very biblical.

Our nature our will is at war with God and we(our free agency) like Jesus must say not my will but your will be done and beat our body into submission. Who can save me from this body of death praise be to Jesus

I hope you made a mistake and meant to say :"do not" repent...

You know what I meant I hope, i did mean to to say do not
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What is the truth about why you said this Icon?

The TRUTH is what you and thses others fail to engage in.....The truth of
scripture...you know....what you call-

And you want me to now chase your silly rabbits, again, no thanks.
you seek to draw attention away from the fact that you are incapable of responding to Biblicist in any meaningful ,scriptural way...you cop out with the silly rabbits ...excuse.And...excuse it is...that is all you have.That and this garbage;

come to logical conclusions about the scriptural interpretations
drawing out the truths through principled reasoning and critical thinking skills
trying skip by (smokescreen) the issue

More excuses, no substance...You can not offer what you do not have.
 

Luke2427

Active Member
LOL, Luke, the man who follows the superstitions of a medieval novice who lived 500 years ago, who followed the Gnostic and Manichaen heresies of Augustine who lived 1500 years ago accuses me of superstition. This is a man that believes that sin is transmitted through sexual lust. :rolleyes:

Can we say HYPOCRITE anyone??

I got a big kick out of the man-eating gar story Luke, that must keep the kids out of the "crick" as you say down your way. :laugh:



Don't get too close little boy, that thing will bite your head clean off!

Don't interrupt a funeral procession Luke, the spirits don't like that. You don't want to hear the owl either my man, and stay away from his nest. Be careful that spider don't write your name.

If you have any idea what you are talking about, which is probably a long shot... that makes one of us.

Are you insulting me because I am from the deep south? Is that what you are trying to do?

You are a special kind of something aren't you?

LOL!
 

Luke2427

Active Member
A million paragraphs about gar and you miss one critical point and that is.....

Winman does indeed understand this already. If you read his posts with any comprehension at all, you would realize that he understands that completely.

You spent several paragraphs insulting him, when the irony is:

It is YOU who doesn't understand how well Winman clearly understands the Calvinist position on this....
Winman's point (since you clearly don't understand it) is that it is BECAUSE they are constrained by their nature and will, and can't WANT to do anything else.

Win's point (which eludes you) is that compulsion is compulsion whether it is external (not Calvinism) or INTERNAL. <--(Calvinism). He simply knows you don't admit it to yourselves or anyone else.

Sheesh :rolleyes:



They killed a lot of gar the same way in Louisiana and Mississippi and Florida too.

Reread his paragraph and maybe you'll see that you missed the part that I was referring to.

Winman quoted a bunch of passages that he thinks proves that men can turn to God as an act of their own will without being moved by God to do so.

Just reread it and maybe you'll see it.

If not, maybe you would've have joined the rednecks in the extermination of the gar?
 

Luke2427

Active Member
What, pray tell, is a "capable" response?
Is that the same as a "will" being a "being" as you said?

duh :sleeping_2:

There are a lot of things men can do that God cannot do, like, for instance:
Call a "will" a "being" and make other similarly stupid category mistakes.

This proves biblicist has beaten you.

You cannot answer his argument.

you're done. The honorable thing for you to do at this point would be to yield- to say to him, "You are right. I have no response for that line of argumentation at this time. You have bested me today. I will study more and get back to you when I am as knowledgeable as you are on these subjects. God bless and thanks for the lesson in humility."

Why don't you just do that?
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
Your very argument is based upon difference of nature and therefore it begs the question.
I am not entirely sure you quite get what "question-begging" is, but, let's continue.
On one hand because God's nature is righteous he cannot lie - it is impossible for him to lie, but that is due to NATURE.
O.K. That is, at least the assumption we all tend to work from. Mind you, I don't for a second think that that is provable, but we tend to assume that is the case. Perhaps he is "CAPABLE" of flasehood (in only the most basic sense), but truly incapable of un-faithfulness or breaking his word once he has spoken it and he is subsequently only "incapable" of lying because he has told us that he will not (and now cannot) lie....
POSSIBLY, He simply doesn't posses the rote raw capability at all? As in, even if he WANTED TO, He could not do it....
I don't know. After all, is God "capable" of making a mistake??? No. Maybe he also simply CAN'T lie.

Of course, I don't necessarily think that is the case, but neither you nor I actually could prove any different. We are working off of assumptions, and I think it is important that we understand that before we claim such grandiose Omniscience about God.
You ask if I can lie and yet you want to dismiss nature as causal in your argument with man.
You can also NOT LIE as well, Biblicist, ever think of that?

On the one hand, you want to claim that we are constrained to always do what an evil nature would have man do, but then, how do you possibly explain why men can also tell the truth!

You made the error of calling man "rational" earlier. But, a rational being, Biblicist, is one capable of deliberation in their decision making.
i.e. Either to lie in one circumstance, or to not lie in another.

Biblicist, God can't EVER lie....In fact, he presumably can't even genuinely deliberate over the OPTION!... But a man can.

Man actually can "CHOOSE" in that instance: God cannot.
If your argument was consistent you would have to admit that the inability of lying is due to the NATURE of God as there is no other cause to explain why it is IMPOSSIBLE with the will of God
O.K....we will work with that assumption.
and therefore the ability to lie is equally due to the contrary NATURE of man.
Sorry, horrific logic.

That simply does not follow.

It is a fundamental principle that you don't say "therefore" after only one premise. Your argument goes like this

1.) God cannot lie because it is contrary to his nature
2.) Therefore, man can lie because it is his nature.
Sorry, that isn't valid.

Besides, as I suggested, the similarity doesn't even hold up. God simply CAN'T lie, he can't deliberate on the possibility of it.

But that isn't the same as a man who can choose EITHER TO LIE OR NOT!!!
You cannot possibly explain the impossiblity of lying in God other than his NATURE
For starters:
It doesn't matter if I can explain it or not. Just because one does not have an alternative explanation for something certainly does not mean that we can't demonstrate that yours is invalid. That's a fundamental Principle of Critical Thinking.

Secondly: I did, in fact pose a few possible (if unlikely) explanations. Which are non-disprovable. Maybe he just doesn't have the rote capacity at all?
Thirdly:
From whence comes the assumption that even if the thing that constrains God from lying is nature that he can't possibly create a being who is not, in fact, capable of making such choices and deliberating on them?
Where do you Calvinists get off assuming that man's nature is a perfect mirror counter-part to God's?

Aren't you guys perpetually reminding us how God is wholely OTHER than a man is?? (And you are quite correct in that) We can hardly understand the FIRST THING about God and what he is and what makes him tick. But now you conveniently ignore the fact and assume that you can explain in detail how God's will and his abilities in deliberation function.
You are also further convinced, that you have boiled it all down to being simply the mirror counter-part to man's.

Then, again, you only explain man's capabilities in decision making by appealing to what we assume God's to be....so......now you are arguing in a circle aren't you?

Num 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


1Sa 15:29
And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Hmmm....
Maybe man's nature (and subsequently his will) is not quite a perfect replica of God's????
and therefore you cannot be consistent by attributing lying in man to some other factor than NATURE.
By the same token, you are now forced to explain why men also DON'T LIE in accordance with that same nature...

A deliberative decision which God cannot make!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
This proves biblicist has beaten you.

You cannot answer his argument.

you're done. The honorable thing for you to do at this point would be to yield- to say to him, "You are right. I have no response for that line of argumentation at this time. You have bested me today. I will study more and get back to you when I am as knowledgeable as you are on these subjects. God bless and thanks for the lesson in humility."

Why don't you just do that?

Two reasons:
1.) I think I have a response forth-coming as yet (even if you can't imagine what it might be)

2.) If the time does indeed come....
I am not one for making grandiose public self-serving displays of my own humility for everyone to see and express their awe at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90305
 

Luke2427

Active Member
Two reasons:
1.) I think I have a response forth-coming as yet (even if you can't imagine what it might be)

2.) If the time does indeed come....
I am not one for making grandiose public self-serving displays of my own humility for everyone to see and express their awe at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90305

1, You did respond. Your response was to avoid the argument like the plague and deflect. That is why your response served as undeniable proof that you have been beaten. That is precisely what beaten people do who lack the honor and humility to admit defeat.

2. I suppose to someone who cannot imagine admitting wrong doing without self-serving purposes in view my confession of error can only seem to you as self-serving. The fact is that I was wrong and admitted it because that is what people do who are able to do it.
You may not be there yet. I hope you will grow in that area and become able to admit when you are bested. I have taken quite a few lumps to be brought there myself and I am not there all the way yet. But I am growing. I hope you can. But I will say that it is evident that you think way too highly of yourself in that you think you are able to judge that post of mine as self-serving without ANY evidence to support that judgment. You just arrogantly called it self-serving. You did not say WHY it must be self-serving. You offer no evidence. You just see yourself as God apparently- and able to discern such things that only a god could discern. To call it self serving without any merit is really quite slimy... like belly-crawling critter slimy. It really is. Seriously. Think about it. I'm not attacking you. Just think about it. Is it not very, very slimy? It really is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
How long have you believed in the sovereignty of man Winman?If people have the kind of power you so vociferously argue --why do they need God?

What? If man can make a decision, then God has no power? I find your argument to be very illogical. One does not follow the other.

Not as bad does not = good. Richard Nixon was not as bad as Obama does not mean that Nixon was good.

And the words 'good' and 'better' are not synonyms.

Calvinists have to admit men are not as bad as they can be because it is obvious to everyone. You can't fool all the people all the time you know. But you can fool the fools.

This of course refutes that men are controlled by their nature, and proves man can determine what his nature is.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

This verse proves my view. Men are not born knowing God's laws. But even men without God's laws mature as they grow older and naturally understand right from wrong. Men in countries that never heard the scriptures had good laws that promoted good behavior and they OBEYED them. That is exactly Paul's point. They were able to do good. The fact that they knew good and performed it made them accountable for sin, because they could have done otherwise.

The scriptures do not teach inability, they teach ability.
 

Winman

Active Member
If you have any idea what you are talking about, which is probably a long shot... that makes one of us.

Are you insulting me because I am from the deep south? Is that what you are trying to do?

You are a special kind of something aren't you?

LOL!

You are the one who brought up the man-eating gar fish story Luke. That didn't happen up north. And I sincerely doubt it happened at all, I think you like to embellish a bit.

And I am just as southern as you, I was born in N. Carolina but spent most of my youth in northern Florida. That's where the southern folks live. And it's even further south than Mississippi.

But I get a distinct impression from you that you are slightly ashamed of being southern, you are always trying to prove how intelligent and educated you are.

Never let your opponent know where your goat is tied up Luke.
 

Winman

Active Member
Reread his paragraph and maybe you'll see that you missed the part that I was referring to.

Winman quoted a bunch of passages that he thinks proves that men can turn to God as an act of their own will without being moved by God to do so.

Just reread it and maybe you'll see it.

If not, maybe you would've have joined the rednecks in the extermination of the gar?

Pure falsehood. I have NEVER said man can come to God without God's grace preceding. Men come in RESPONSE to God, ALWAYS. You have never heard me say otherwise.

But I do believe men can come in response to God just as they are, and do not need to be regenerated to come in faith. I believe all men have the God-given ability to believe if they choose to do so.

Note I said "God-given" Luke.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am not entirely sure you quite get what "question-begging" is, but, let's continue.

You argument both assumes and denies the very issue we are debating. In the case of God your argument assumes that his righteous nature is the cause of inability to sin while at the same time you deny such is the cause in man's ability to sin. You can't have it both ways.


[O.K. That is, at least the assumption we all tend to work from. Mind you, I don't for a second think that that is provable, but we tend to assume that is the case.

The Bible repeatedly states that God "IS" holy and "IS" love and "IS" righteous and "IS" is a STATE OF BEING verb and the nouns "holy, love, righteous" with the state of being verb defines the NATURE of God. God "IS" Immutable and thus His nature is UNCHANGABLE and thus He is INCAPABLE of sin, however one might define it. So it is provable if words mean anything.


[ Perhaps he is "CAPABLE" of flasehood (in only the most basic sense),

Impossible because he is IMMUTABLE and that means his holiness/righteousness is IMMUTABLE - Mal. 3:6 - and so there is no possible capability for him to sin, lie or be unfaithful to Himself or His word.

[ He simply doesn't posses the rote raw capability at all? As in, even if he WANTED TO, He could not do it....
I don't know. After all, is God "capable" of making a mistake??? No. Maybe he also simply CAN'T lie.

Impossible because he is IMMUTABLE and His will simply manifests his righteous nature which is immutable.

[Of course, I don't necessarily think that is the case, but neither you nor I actually could prove any different. We are working off of assumptions, and I think it is important that we understand that before we claim such grandiose Omniscience about God.

No assumptions here at all but the plain explicit langauge of scripture that PROVES he cannot lie, he cannot sin, his will is incapable of expressing anything contrary to his IMMUTABLE righteous nature.

[You can also NOT LIE as well, Biblicist, ever think of that?

You and I are already liars by nature. Indeed the word of God says that ALL MEN are liars. You seem to define "lying" merely by verbal expression. We are made in the "image of God" and therefore any motives,attitude, thoughts, words or actions contradictiory to that image is expressing a lie. Thinking we can live without dependency pon God is lying. Your understanding of sin seems superficial.

[On the one hand, you want to claim that we are constrained to always do what an evil nature would have man do, but then, how do you possibly explain why men can also tell the truth!

I explain it by the reason of motive. If a fallen man tells the truth it is ALWAYS from the wrong motive as the only right motive is for the glory of God which the fallen nature will not do and therefore cannot do - Rom. 8:7.


[You made the error of calling man "rational" earlier. But, a rational being, Biblicist, is one capable of deliberation in their decision making.
i.e. Either to lie in one circumstance, or to not lie in another.

Fallen man LIVES a lie at all times and IS a lie as long as He is separated from spiritual union with God. His deliberations are always RELATIVE and restricted by options, power and opportunities.

[Biblicist, God can't EVER lie....In fact, he presumably can't even genuinely deliberate over the OPTION!... But a man can.

Again, you are ignoring that the difference is due to NATURE. God never deliberates trying to determine what He will do because He operates by eternal immutable purpose.

[Man actually can "CHOOSE" in that instance: God cannot.

Again, you are ignoring the white elephant in the room - NATURE. God's nature is drammaticaly different than man's. God's inability to choose evil is due to his IMMUTABLE righteous nature.

[It is a fundamental principle that you don't say "therefore" after only one premise. Your argument goes like this

1.) God cannot lie because it is contrary to his nature
2.) Therefore, man can lie because it is his nature.
Sorry, that isn't valid.

The reason you are incapable of admitting this is because you misrepresent/misunderstand the nature of God. God is immutably holy while man is fallen from holiness by nature and apart from a divine act of creation is inherently evil by nature - Rom. 8:7-8
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Inspector Javert

Active Member
You have proved one of my main points for me perfectly:
God's nature is drammaticaly different than man's.
And yet, the basis for your entire argument is essentially that if God's "nature" compels him to act in a certain way, than, man's "nature" MUST similarly compel him to act in certain ways.

Man's "will" is no different in capacity than God's "will".

That is the assumption you have to make, but it also traps you when men do that which is right.

Because God has no capacity to deliberate between right and wrong, and yet man does....
thus, at minimum, man's will, and subsequently, his capacity for "choice" and "choosing" is by default, inherently distinct from God's...

However, you are also forced to suggest that all "choices" are simply causally necessitated by that pre-existing nature. Which defines how God's will works in your schema.

Your arguments are self-defeating.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
You argument both assumes and denies the very issue we are debating. In the case of God your argument assumes that his righteous nature is the cause of inability to sin while at the same time you deny such is the cause in man's ability to sin. You can't have it both ways.

So, no, then....you don't quite understand what "question-begging" is:

If, what you say is true (I insist it isn't of course) than the correct accusation isn't "question-begging".

In the words of the inestimable Inigo Montoya:
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You argument both assumes and denies the very issue we are debating. In the case of God your argument assumes that his righteous nature is the cause of inability to sin while at the same time you deny such is the cause in man's ability to sin. You can't have it both ways.




The Bible repeatedly states that God "IS" holy and "IS" love and "IS" righteous and "IS" is a STATE OF BEING verb and the nouns "holy, love, righteous" with the state of being verb defines the NATURE of God. God "IS" Immutable and thus His nature is UNCHANGABLE and thus He is INCAPABLE of sin, however one might define it. So it is provable if words mean anything.




Impossible because he is IMMUTABLE and that means his holiness/righteousness is IMMUTABLE - Mal. 3:6 - and so there is no possible capability for him to sin, lie or be unfaithful to Himself or His word.

I hate it when so much material is covered in a single post as this makes any headway impossible. All of the Inspectors various arguments hinge on his complete misunderstanding of the relationship of the will of God to God's IMMUTABLE holy nature. His NATURE is the decisve factor just as it is the decisive factor with the will of fallen man.

Secondly, and even more importantly is the Inspectors superficial understanding of sin. He restricts sin to mere consequences within and outside of man rather than to the heart motive which is the cause of all consequences within and without man. Thus he denies that man is a sinner by nature but just a sinner by choice and actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top