So God can sin because if he can't, he can't do all things and is not omnipotent according to Skandelon, because saying there are things he cannot do is saying he is not omnipotent.
Got it!
Thanks!
-
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!
Good versus Evil
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
So God can sin because if he can't, he can't do all things and is not omnipotent according to Skandelon, because saying there are things he cannot do is saying he is not omnipotent.
Got it!
Thanks!
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Uh ... that's not what he said. He said God can only do what you -- Luke -- can fathom. Can you fathom that God sins?
Just wondering ...
You know I can't, or at least there is no reason for you to think I can. So you're obviously not interested in discussion,; you're only interested in being insulting.
What you are missing is that Skandelon said that because I said that God cannot create beings that can create things from NOTHING because that is an attribute that only God could possibly posses that I am saying God can only do what I say he can do.
He goes on to say that me saying that God cannot do this means I am saying God is weak.
Well... that's really trashy.
He is not being intellectually honest because he KNOWS that saying that God cannot do somethings is NOT saying that God is weak. He knows that, but he is banking that there are some novices out there reading this who do ONT know it and will be influenced to his side by painting me as one who believes in a small God.
So my retort is that if saying that God cannot do some things means I am saying that God is weak then Sakndelon is saying that God can do anything because if he could not do anything then he is weak... ergo God can sin according to Skandelon.
So, yes, it really is what Skandelon was saying if you follow his arguments to its logical conclusion.
Of course Skandelon does not care about logic and if you don't, this may not mean anything to you either. I do not know.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I think this subject is kind of a sticky semantic debate that has no way of being resolved. Will God ever sin? We know that He won't. But does this mean He can't? We use the terminology that He can't. But is this limiting God? Or would it be better to say that He WON'T sin? Is He limited by ability or choice?
I personally believe that God could create someone who could create ex nihilo. Will He? No. He has reserved that attribute for Himself. But I believe He could if He chose to.
But, as I said, I believe we're arguing a non issue. Whether He could/would sin/lie etc, He won't.
I personally believe that God could create someone who could create ex nihilo. Will He? No. He has reserved that attribute for Himself. But I believe He could if He chose to.
But, as I said, I believe we're arguing a non issue. Whether He could/would sin/lie etc, He won't.
I would like to suggest that God does not create evil for He is God.
Anything He creates is his own, and how He uses it is His own to decide. All things in heaven and earth - excluding none.
If humankind equates that which God created as evil, it does not make it evil.
Just because God placed a "law" upon humankind to follow, does not mean God must be limited by that law.
Example, God limited humankind from the beginning - "Don't eat..."
But, was God limited?
If God wants to create a mighty flood to destroy the world, humankind would consider it evil - when it was truly justice.
What God creates is always good - even if humankind might consider it evil.
To extend this thinking:
There is a subtle difference between the English understanding of the words "create," "made, and "formed."
How one attends to these three words will also impact the thinking of God and evil.
Perhaps that is for another thread, though.
Anything He creates is his own, and how He uses it is His own to decide. All things in heaven and earth - excluding none.
If humankind equates that which God created as evil, it does not make it evil.
Just because God placed a "law" upon humankind to follow, does not mean God must be limited by that law.
Example, God limited humankind from the beginning - "Don't eat..."
But, was God limited?
If God wants to create a mighty flood to destroy the world, humankind would consider it evil - when it was truly justice.
What God creates is always good - even if humankind might consider it evil.
To extend this thinking:
There is a subtle difference between the English understanding of the words "create," "made, and "formed."
How one attends to these three words will also impact the thinking of God and evil.
Perhaps that is for another thread, though.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
No, I'm interested in you staying on point, not misrepresenting what someone else has said, and trying to logically prove your arguments.
Thus far, I've seen nothing that indicates that you can do any of these. And that's not an insult, either, that's just a statement of fact.
I didn't miss that at all. What you are missing is that God can create such beings. Nothing is beyond His power. He has chosen not to. That He chooses against an action is not proof He can't perform the action.
I don't know if it's trashy or not, but it definitely means you are saying God is weak. No offense, I'm not trying to disparage you, but if you can't see the difference between God's choosing not to do something and God not being able to do something, you have a weak view of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do like the distinction that you are making between "choosing not" as compared to "incapable of."
That is the thinking behind Christ's statement "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt 19)
The principle is that God would not do anything that was contrary to His nature and character - but then the question needs to be considered.
In eternity - before anything that was created or in existence but God, what was out of the nature and character of God?
Nothing. The essence of good and evil did not exist or have viability.
For there was nothing but God.
Folks don't dwell on that too long, but only to consider that humankind is historically known to superimpose limits and standards upon God which may in actuality be askew of God. God has given us His word to guide us, not limit Him.
God is God.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
You are attempting to equate God's presumed inability to create morally free agents (contra-causally free rather than determined) with God's choice to not to break his own rules?
Do you think that is reasonable? Logical? To PRESUME that on the basis of God's Holy sinlessness, that He must be unable to create truly responsible (read 'response-able' not 'accountable for God's determinations of responses') creatures? That seems backwards. It would seem to be that because of God's holiness and 'inability to sin' that he would NOT be able/willing to determine sinful motivations. Why are you arguing that God cannot sin as your foundational reason for why you believe God determines men to sin?
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon, is it not unreasonable to consider that the original human units had complete freedom as moral agents (not knowing good and evil) but only that which God provided?
Perhaps we look at the fall as if something was deprived (as taken away) when in actuality the fall was taking what was good and perverting it with knowledge of what is good and evil.
As a result, all humankind have this knowledge as integral to who they are and which persuades or obliges worldly nature. That the believer must then have a whole new nature instilled to wrestle against the old. A nature that has no obligation or even intent to evil.
There is then actually no "free moral agents" sense the "fall" in Eden.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I believe men are responsible for God's revelation even after the fall. There is no reason not to believe so since God does hold man responsible.
By the way, I understand responsible to mean as it suggests...response-able (able to respond), not 'held to account for something you have no ability to control.'
quantumfaith
Active Member
Original Perfection?
The Calvinist doctrine raises a more basic question for our consideration: Where do the Scriptures teach that man had a holy, pure nature that became corrupted and transmitted to his posterity? Calvinists, and most Christians, for that matter, assume that God made Adam morally perfect. The London Confession of Faith presupposes this when it says that God "created man after His own Image, filled with all meet perfection of nature, and free from all sin" (Section IV). But where does the Bible convey this bit of information?
It is reasonable to affirm that Adam and Eve were created with an original innocence. This, however, is not the same thing as the London Confession's reference to "perfection of nature." Our first parents did lose innocence when they sinned. Their eyes were then opened to good and evil, prompting them to hide from their Creator (Gen. 3:7,8). But it is another thing altogether to say that they fell from a state of moral perfection to total depravity.
Many of the 17th century Polish Brethren denied that God created Adam either immortal or morally perfect. A document drawn up by Faustus Socinus and others expresses this thought:
"As to what pertains to the qualities of Adam before the Fall, it may be asked: (1) Whether or not he was provided with an original justice. This is to be denied;...For why did Adam sin if it is as they say?...God created nothing perfect. For if he had created anything perfect, it would never have been able to sin and the angels themselves, although by far the most noble of God's creatures, are nevertheless not perfect, because they [some] sinned."7
The fact that God called His creation "good" does not mean it was all morally perfect. Barnabas was "a good man" (Acts 11:24), but he certainly was not a morally perfect man. "Good" can simply mean that it was complete and suitable for the divine purpose. In Ecclesiastes 7:29, it says, "God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes." But the word "upright" does not necessarily denote moral perfection.
It may be argued that the passages dealing with man's extreme sinfulness from birth prove the Calvinist's point. After all, how could God create beings who "drink evil like water" (Job 15:16) or who are "shapen in iniquity" (Psalm 51:5, KJV)?
While there is no denying the universal sinfulness of man, it should be noted that most of these extreme statements are from prophets and inspired poets who are expressing either outrage or brokenness of spirit. They are bold statements underscoring man's tendency to go astray. This tendency, we believe, was in Adam as well as every man who followed him. There is no exegetical reason to suppose otherwise.
The Racovian Catechism notes how the character of people - both good and bad - is sometimes expressed poetically in extreme speech denoting a "from the womb" condition:
"David uses a certain hyperbolical exaggeration - of which we have an example in his own writings (Psalm 58:3), 'The wicked go astray from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' Similar instances are found in Isaiah 48:8, 'I knew that thou wouldst deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.' John 9:34, 'Thou wast altogether born in sins.' And also, in the opposite case, Job 31:18, 'From my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father and I have guided her from my mother's womb.'"8
Man is a sinner. Every person has folly bound up in the heart from earliest days (Prov. 22:15). But was Adam any different? The burden of proof is on the Calvinists to show that he was. The Scriptures never say so, and it is not our responsibility to prove a negative (a logical impossibility).
This is a serious difficulty. The Calvinist's entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable. He lost perfection through sin and assumed a nature totally corrupted and alienated from God, a nature imparted to all mankind as a curse. But the Scriptural evidence for these contentions is, at best, scant. For the most part, the doctrine is assumed unquestionably. Adam's fall from moral perfection was established by Augustine's polemics against Pelagianism and passed on, without alteration, through the barren centuries of the Middle Ages. Calvin received it in toto from his medieval legacy, as has each successive generation of theologians since.
A doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation-stone for the system should have unequivocal proof in the Bible. If a theology is based on an unproven philosophic assumption how can the rest of the system be trustworthy? The Calvinist cannot expect us to believe him unless the consistent tenor of Scripture tells us: (1) God made man morally perfect; (2) Adam's sin immediately corrupted him and rendered him unable to respond to God; (3) God transmitted this inability to all his descendants.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Genesis
The Calvinist doctrine raises a more basic question for our consideration: Where do the Scriptures teach that man had a holy, pure nature that became corrupted and transmitted to his posterity? Calvinists, and most Christians, for that matter, assume that God made Adam morally perfect. The London Confession of Faith presupposes this when it says that God "created man after His own Image, filled with all meet perfection of nature, and free from all sin" (Section IV). But where does the Bible convey this bit of information?
It is reasonable to affirm that Adam and Eve were created with an original innocence. This, however, is not the same thing as the London Confession's reference to "perfection of nature." Our first parents did lose innocence when they sinned. Their eyes were then opened to good and evil, prompting them to hide from their Creator (Gen. 3:7,8). But it is another thing altogether to say that they fell from a state of moral perfection to total depravity.
Many of the 17th century Polish Brethren denied that God created Adam either immortal or morally perfect. A document drawn up by Faustus Socinus and others expresses this thought:
"As to what pertains to the qualities of Adam before the Fall, it may be asked: (1) Whether or not he was provided with an original justice. This is to be denied;...For why did Adam sin if it is as they say?...God created nothing perfect. For if he had created anything perfect, it would never have been able to sin and the angels themselves, although by far the most noble of God's creatures, are nevertheless not perfect, because they [some] sinned."7
The fact that God called His creation "good" does not mean it was all morally perfect. Barnabas was "a good man" (Acts 11:24), but he certainly was not a morally perfect man. "Good" can simply mean that it was complete and suitable for the divine purpose. In Ecclesiastes 7:29, it says, "God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes." But the word "upright" does not necessarily denote moral perfection.
It may be argued that the passages dealing with man's extreme sinfulness from birth prove the Calvinist's point. After all, how could God create beings who "drink evil like water" (Job 15:16) or who are "shapen in iniquity" (Psalm 51:5, KJV)?
While there is no denying the universal sinfulness of man, it should be noted that most of these extreme statements are from prophets and inspired poets who are expressing either outrage or brokenness of spirit. They are bold statements underscoring man's tendency to go astray. This tendency, we believe, was in Adam as well as every man who followed him. There is no exegetical reason to suppose otherwise.
The Racovian Catechism notes how the character of people - both good and bad - is sometimes expressed poetically in extreme speech denoting a "from the womb" condition:
"David uses a certain hyperbolical exaggeration - of which we have an example in his own writings (Psalm 58:3), 'The wicked go astray from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' Similar instances are found in Isaiah 48:8, 'I knew that thou wouldst deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.' John 9:34, 'Thou wast altogether born in sins.' And also, in the opposite case, Job 31:18, 'From my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father and I have guided her from my mother's womb.'"8
Man is a sinner. Every person has folly bound up in the heart from earliest days (Prov. 22:15). But was Adam any different? The burden of proof is on the Calvinists to show that he was. The Scriptures never say so, and it is not our responsibility to prove a negative (a logical impossibility).
This is a serious difficulty. The Calvinist's entire system of soteriology is founded on the grand assumption that Adam was created morally impeccable. He lost perfection through sin and assumed a nature totally corrupted and alienated from God, a nature imparted to all mankind as a curse. But the Scriptural evidence for these contentions is, at best, scant. For the most part, the doctrine is assumed unquestionably. Adam's fall from moral perfection was established by Augustine's polemics against Pelagianism and passed on, without alteration, through the barren centuries of the Middle Ages. Calvin received it in toto from his medieval legacy, as has each successive generation of theologians since.
A doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation-stone for the system should have unequivocal proof in the Bible. If a theology is based on an unproven philosophic assumption how can the rest of the system be trustworthy? The Calvinist cannot expect us to believe him unless the consistent tenor of Scripture tells us: (1) God made man morally perfect; (2) Adam's sin immediately corrupted him and rendered him unable to respond to God; (3) God transmitted this inability to all his descendants.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Genesis
Inspector Javert
Active Member
The most troublesome thing to me....is the Determinist insistence on classifying a free decision as "Creating" a "thing" ex-nihilo. I don't yet see why nobody has called them on that tendency. It's a category mistake.
Firstly, a decision isn't even an "existing" "thing"
Secondly, it isn't ex-nihilo anyway since it requires a preexisting causal agent to make it.
No, man can't "create" a thing ex-nihilo, but frankly, nothing which exists post the creative decree involves ex-nihilo becoming anyway....there's a Universe already here....and moral agents who now already exist. There is at minimum a "mind" (however we define it)...there is a brain and it's interplay with said mind, replete with it's electrical charges synapses etc... There are emotions, intent (yes desires)...Whetever things inform ultimate decision making within that agent....it isn't "nothingness".
A decision "made" in a vacuum in a Universe without any agents without a determiner to actually MAKE the decision is a decision which comes into being "ex-nihilo". Not a decision rendered by an existing causal agent.
The determinists are trying to sell us some beach-front property in Arizona with this classification....time to call them on it.
Firstly, a decision isn't even an "existing" "thing"
Secondly, it isn't ex-nihilo anyway since it requires a preexisting causal agent to make it.
No, man can't "create" a thing ex-nihilo, but frankly, nothing which exists post the creative decree involves ex-nihilo becoming anyway....there's a Universe already here....and moral agents who now already exist. There is at minimum a "mind" (however we define it)...there is a brain and it's interplay with said mind, replete with it's electrical charges synapses etc... There are emotions, intent (yes desires)...Whetever things inform ultimate decision making within that agent....it isn't "nothingness".
A decision "made" in a vacuum in a Universe without any agents without a determiner to actually MAKE the decision is a decision which comes into being "ex-nihilo". Not a decision rendered by an existing causal agent.
The determinists are trying to sell us some beach-front property in Arizona with this classification....time to call them on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
I have come across people whose purpose is to belittle the Christian faith make cute questions out of this type of material. For example, "can God commit suicide?" If one answers yes, then He is not eternal, if one answers no, He is not all powerful. Or, "can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?"
These types of discussions produce nothing, as has been pointed out, our minds cannot scratch the surface on the depths of God's nature or abilities. Two, these discussions add nothing towards trying to explain the Gospel to a lost person. The best thing in these cases, as Scripture says, is to shake the dirt off ones shoes and move on.
I agree.
When I do find someone entrenched in schemes to belittle believers and God, I generally refuse to sit, stand or walk in their way.
At times, one must answer so other are kept from harm.
At times, one does not need to answer because the harm is self evident.
If Adam were made less that "morally perfect" then God and Adam would have had difficulty in the undetermined length of time the two had fellowship face to face in the evenings. There is no evidence that there was other than perfect agreement by the setting given in the account.
This is in contrast to Moses who was responsible to present God in all the perfection of the Law.
Moses, who presented the perfect law, for all the encounters he had, could not have "face to face" fellowship and unfettered access to God as Adam did.
Abraham, who saw the very Christ (three who came to tell of destruction of the cities), did not have such a relationship with God.
Adam new God, walked with God, talked with God, and had unfettered access to God.
Without "moral perfection" there was no intimate fellowship with God. Hence the need for BOTH propitiation and atonement from the time of the fall.
When Adam took FREELY of the fruit, he no longer was "morally perfect." That FACT is reflected in his desire to hide from God.
The whole writing, therefore, is based upon a false view of this issue, and attempting to refute it is not worthy of further comment when from the "get up and go" it starts marching off on the wrong foot.
As typical of half truth - it presents false views of God and the relationship of Humankind to God.
One could almost liken it to the same situation that Eve was presented by the enemy of God - taking what is the truth and using it to misrepresent in a scheme that ultimately will distort and destroy.
The very same scheme was tried on Christ in the desert.
It all depends on what you mean by "perfect".
Were Adam and Eve sinless when they were created? Yes. Were they unable to sin? NO.
Eve had the three worldly lusts described in 1 John 2:16 BEFORE she sinned.
1 Jhn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Look at Eve in Gen 3:6, she displayed these three worldly lusts in order just as they are shown in 1 John:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Eve saw the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. She saw it was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes. She saw it was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life.
Was Eve sinful when she displayed these three worldly lusts? NO, God himself said Adam and Eve were very good. (Gen 1:31).
So, it is not our flesh with it's worldy lusts that makes us evil. Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.
It is only when we obey these fleshly lusts when they would cause us to transgress God's law that we become sinful and evil. If Eve had walked away, she would have not been evil or sinful.
Likewise, the scriptures say God has made man upright.
Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
The word "they" points back to man and shows this verse is speaking of all men, not just Adam. Like Adam and Eve, we all come into this world sinless. Romans 9:11 shows that babies are without sin. It is not our natural fleshly lusts that makes us evil, but when we willingly and knowingly choose to fulfill these lusts when they transgress God's laws that we become evil.
This is why Paul said he was alive without the law once (Rom 7:9), because sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13). When Paul matured and understood the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died, just as Adam and Eve spiritually died when they knowingly and willingly broke God's law.
All men come into this world upright or sinless. They are good. But all men have the ability to sin as Adam and Eve did, and all men become evil when they choose to sin as Adam and Eve did.
I have no problem with this post to this point.
Winman doesn't state that Adam and Eve were not "morally perfect" but does rightly appoint that they were both free and capable to make "moral decisions."
However, your repeated view that humankind is born "tabula rasa" is just Scripturally unsupportable, and has been shown by overwhelming evidence to not be medically sound, either.
From the time of the birth of the first human, humankind has been born morally imperfect.
No person is born the way Adam and Eve were formed.
For one thing we have at least one physical attribute they did not - baby teeth and belly buttons are just a few.
We must learn to control the body, mind and spirit; learn to talk, to discern right, to bring the temperament under control...
Adam and Eve did not have a number of attributes their children experienced.
We also have far more limited intellect and discernment than Adam. He was NOT deceived as Eve, but TOOK FREELY of the fruit.
It is not the sin of Eve committed, but the willful and direct attitude and action of ADAM in which Christ paid the ransom.
Not because He was "in flesh" but because from the beginning He was the Word of God - and God cannot have His Word any less than He is - the I Am.
So you are saying the Scriptures are wrong.
You have been shown your error, repeatedly, and yet persist in clinging to what is not supported by Scriptures.
If you are going to refer to Scriptures, at least put it in context:
Ecclesiastes says:
23 I tested all this with wisdom, and I said, “I will be wise,” but it was far from me. 24 What has been is remote and exceedingly mysterious. Who can discover it? 25 I directed my mind to know, to investigate and to seek wisdom and an explanation, and to know the evil of folly and the foolishness of madness. 26 And I discovered more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her. 27“Behold, I have discovered this,” says the Preacher, “adding one thing to another to find an explanation, 28which I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these. 29“Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.”
In CONTEXT, Winman, it isn't applying the "state of man at birth" or it would be limited to only the male population - women being corrupt from birth.
CONTEXT, winman. Don't grab a verse and think it supports your view when it doesn't.
You claim the same for Romans:
10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11for 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, 12it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
Paul didn't say they were "sinless" but had not yet DONE anything good or bad.
Again, you are attempting to put a reading that was never intended into the passage.
The CONTEXT does not support you in this area.
Where to start?????
First, when "Paul was matured and understood the law" he was no more convicted that any other heathen.
John 16:
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
Conviction is brought by the work of the Holy Spirit - not by maturity and knowledge.
People do not have to wait upon maturity and knowledge - they are CONDEMNED ALREADY!
John 3:
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
So much for the Proof of your statements.
Do you ever get tired of trying to find "proof" for you view, only to find that you have grabbed smoke and mirrors?
Winman, if you are going to rely upon the Scriptures, at least present them accurately, contextually, and aligned doctrinally with their intent.
Last edited by a moderator:
And so are we;
Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
The words, "Either make" and "or else make" show two things, that we have both option and the ability to choose whether we are good or corrupt. And this was spoken by Jesus himself.
Not really sure (or care) what "tabula rasa" means, but scripture says God has made men upright.
Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
OK, so Adam and Eve did not have belly buttons. So what?
Hate to disagree with you, but scripture also says that Eve sinned. Scripture also calls both Adam and Eve "Adam".
1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
And actually, we have one thing Adam and Eve did not originally have, the knowledge of good and evil.
Scripture says God cannot be tempted (Jam 1:13), but Jesus could be tempted and was tempted in all points as we are. Why? Because he inherited his mother's flesh, God is spirit.
Baloney, I have always used scripture to support my views, unlike my opponents who simply parrot Reformed doctrine without scriptural support.
It simply says God has made "man" upright. This means mankind. And the word "they" points back to man, showing it is speaking of all men.
The context is that it is simply an observation of Solomon. He said one thing he has found is that God has made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. All men start out without sin, but all men soon go astray in sin, which is of their own invention, God did not create them evil.
Well, if you have not done any evil, then you are sinless. I don't recall there being a commandment against being born. Do you?
Paul said what he said, Esau and Jacob had done no evil as babies.
Sure he was, Paul said when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. He didn't say he mistakenly believed he was alive and then he mistakenly believed he died, he said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. He said sin slew him. You have to be alive to die, you have to be alive to be slain. And Paul could not possibly be speaking of physical death, so he MUST be speaking of spiritual death.
Baloney, God does not hold little children accountable.
Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
When the Jews sinned in the wilderness, God cursed them so that they would die in the wilderness. They were not allowed to enter the promised land. But God allowed their children to go in, because they did not know between good and evil in that day. This shows God does not hold a person accountable unless they know good from evil.
And this is why Adam and Eve spiritually died, because they knew good from evil after they ate the forbidden fruit.
John 3 is speaking of adults, not babies. We know from scripture when King David's child died that he was saved, because David said he would go to be with his child, and David was a prophet.
If your view is correct, then all babies should go to hell. Of course, no one, including most Calvinists believes this (because they KNOW babies are not sinners), so they invent false doctrine and say God shows babies special grace.
In other words, because people falsely believe babies are sinners, they must create more error and teach that sinners are saved without trusting in Jesus.
You simply cannot see just how messed up and full of error your doctrine really is. It violates scripture everywhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Thanks for the link Quantum:...:applause:
I like this little bit here:
The Hardened Heart
Total Inability also seems to oppose the Bible teaching concerning hardness of heart. The Scriptures warn us that those who repeatedly trifle with sin may sear their consciences (1 Tim. 4:2), render themselves "past feeling" (Eph. 4:19) and enter into a hardening of the heart toward God and His truth. This is not a condition of birth, but seems to be a consequence of repeated sin.
Isaiah speaks of this condition: "Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?" (Isa. 63:17) The hardening of the heart which precludes reverence of God is here described as a condition that has come upon these people, probably as a judgment for rebellion. But Calvinists tell us that this condition - an invincible anti-God bent - is the birth-condition of all human beings.
In Romans 1, Paul writes of men who are "without excuse" because of the manifest presence of God in the creation. He says, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). Here we see men who became futile in their thinking and were given over to a darkened state of the heart. The apostle is not speaking of a condition of birth, but a judgment that came upon them because of willful refusal to acknowledge the Creator.
The Calvinist is hard-pressed to show how this judgment condition of darkness differs from their notions of Total Inability - a state they deem universal. Their doctrine states that everyone is born hardened toward God, unable to believe or take the slightest step toward Him. But if this is true, why do the Scriptures seem to say this only about some people?
Again, Zechariah says of rebellious Zion, "They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty has sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets" (Zech. 7:12). Here, people made themselves insensible to the truth of God, indicating that they were not in this condition from the womb.
There is no denying that all people are born with sinful tendencies and are apt to go astray. This can be established by Scripture and experience. But it is one thing to say that all men have such tendencies and quite another that they are unable to respond to God. General human sinfulness differs from Total Inability. To prove the first is not necessarily to prove the second.
I like this little bit here:
The Hardened Heart
Total Inability also seems to oppose the Bible teaching concerning hardness of heart. The Scriptures warn us that those who repeatedly trifle with sin may sear their consciences (1 Tim. 4:2), render themselves "past feeling" (Eph. 4:19) and enter into a hardening of the heart toward God and His truth. This is not a condition of birth, but seems to be a consequence of repeated sin.
Isaiah speaks of this condition: "Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?" (Isa. 63:17) The hardening of the heart which precludes reverence of God is here described as a condition that has come upon these people, probably as a judgment for rebellion. But Calvinists tell us that this condition - an invincible anti-God bent - is the birth-condition of all human beings.
In Romans 1, Paul writes of men who are "without excuse" because of the manifest presence of God in the creation. He says, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). Here we see men who became futile in their thinking and were given over to a darkened state of the heart. The apostle is not speaking of a condition of birth, but a judgment that came upon them because of willful refusal to acknowledge the Creator.
The Calvinist is hard-pressed to show how this judgment condition of darkness differs from their notions of Total Inability - a state they deem universal. Their doctrine states that everyone is born hardened toward God, unable to believe or take the slightest step toward Him. But if this is true, why do the Scriptures seem to say this only about some people?
Again, Zechariah says of rebellious Zion, "They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty has sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets" (Zech. 7:12). Here, people made themselves insensible to the truth of God, indicating that they were not in this condition from the womb.
There is no denying that all people are born with sinful tendencies and are apt to go astray. This can be established by Scripture and experience. But it is one thing to say that all men have such tendencies and quite another that they are unable to respond to God. General human sinfulness differs from Total Inability. To prove the first is not necessarily to prove the second.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
That is correct. God is not the author of evil, and He tempts no man. God does allow evil things to happen through our own depraved minds. God uses people doing evil to accomplish His purposes, such as hardening Pharaoh's heart, or bringing an end to the reign of Saul over a period of time. I do not think we as humans will ever understand the complete nature of God in relation to good and evil. For sure, we know that God, and only God, is truly good. Anyway, good post.
- Status