How did God “constitute” mankind after the fall?

[Van]

Will you answer the OP? How did God “constitute” mankind after the fall and on what basis did He act?
peace to you

1) Scripture does not say God "constituted" humankind, but Romans 5:19 says God made humankind "sinners." To be made a sinner, while having not done anything good or evil (Romans 9:11) must mean to be made with the consequence of sin, corruption so they are predisposed to sin, and separation from God, conceived in the realm of darkness.

Calvinism makes God the author of sin, because God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass. But in the next sentence, Calvinism says God is not the author of sin. So OTOH, God predestines every sin, yet does not predestine every sin.

Behold the cognitive dissonance of Calvinism.
1) If a person is unable to seek God, are they sinning when not seeking God?
2) If a person is punished for not seeking God, are they punished because God made them unable to seek God?
3) Thus the "T" of the Tulip is unbiblical, because it removed human responsibility for sin.

Who would embrace this irrational and unbiblical twaddle?

 

[George Antonios]

There are some who claim that the reformed position that mankind, because of the fall, is unable to seek God for salvation (without His intervention) due to their fallen nature, makes God cruel and unjust for requiring something (faith) they are unable to give.

They also claim that such belief makes God responsible for man’s sin because he was so “constituted” by God after the fall that they would always act according to their sin nature and had no choice to do otherwise.

I want to show the folly of such belief.

God most certainly determined the consequences of the fall including how mankind was “constituted” afterward. I’ll address spiritual inability in a moment.

To believe that makes God responsible for mankind’s rebellion goes far beyond the issue of Spiritual inability to seek God for salvation. It literally makes God the author of all sin.

When Cain’s sacrifice was rejected and he killed Abel, such belief makes God responsible for Abel’s murder because God so “constituted” Cain’s nature that he would experienced envy, jealousy, anger and hatred... making him capable of murder.

Such belief makes God responsible for every reprehensible act ever committed because of the way God “constituted” mankind.

Scripture clearly lays the responsibility for sin with Adam’s rebellion. Does that mean God didn’t “constitute” the sin nature of mankind as a consequence of the fall? Of course not, as He clearly did.

So why did God choose such harsh consequences for the fall? The answer lies in God’s nature.

God always responds according to His nature. In the case of the fall, God’s Holiness, righteousness, justice must be considered as determining the consequences of the fall, including spiritual inability to seek God for salvation.

The good news is that God’s nature also consist of love, mercy and forgiveness. Instead of leaving mankind in such a helpless condition, God chooses to intervene in the lives of those He has chosen for mercy and bring them to salvation by the power of Holy Spirit and faith in Jesus.

peace to you

We're not claiming anything that prominent Calvinists don't claim. We're literally repeating their words.

 

[canadyjd]

We're not claiming anything that prominent Calvinists don't claim. We're literally repeating their words.

I haven’t seen you accurately repeat any position that Calvinists hold.

Will you address the OP? How was mankind “constituted” after the fall and what was the basis for God’s choice in determining the consequences?

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

1) Scripture does not say God "constituted" humankind, but Romans 5:19 says God made humankind "sinners." To be made a sinner, while having not done anything good or evil (Romans 9:11) must mean to be made with the consequence of sin, corruption so they are predisposed to sin, and separation from God, conceived in the realm.....?

A distinction without a difference.

If God “predisposed” mankind to sin as a consequence of the fall (and everyone sinned and is separated from God), what was the basis for God determining the consequences of the fall?

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

I haven’t seen you accurately repeat any position that Calvinists hold.

Will you address the OP? How was mankind “constituted” after the fall and what was the basis for God’s choice in determining the consequences?

peace to you

Did you listen to the video?

And why are you asking me? It's your position as a Calvinist, not mine.

Do not Calvinists believe that as a result of Adam's sin mankind was rendered unable to even confess its depravity and unable even to simply believe the gospel?

And who is it that set those consequences of the fall if not God? Was it not God that ordained the thorns and thistles, and the pain of childbearing? And is it not God that so constituted mankind after the fall as to be unable to even believe?
Is it not God that predestinates and foreordains every little last element?

 

[canadyjd]

Did you listen to the video?

And why are you asking me? It's your position as a Calvinist, not mine.

Do not Calvinists believe that as a result of Adam's sin mankind was rendered unable to even confess its depravity and unable even to simply believe the gospel?

And who is it that set those consequences of the fall if not God? Was it not God that ordained the thorns and thistles, and the pain of childbearing? And is it not God that so constituted mankind after the fall as to be unable to even believe?
Is it not God that predestinates and foreordains every little last element?

I understand my position, I’m asking for yours.

How did God “constitute” mankind after the fall and what was the basis for doing so?

peace to you

 

[Van]

A distinction without a difference.
If God “predisposed” mankind to sin as a consequence of the fall (and everyone sinned and is separated from God), what was the basis for God determining the consequences of the fall?
peace to you

Sin causes a separation from our Holy God. To be made sinners refers to our condition at conception.
Mark 7:21 illustrates the corruption of our soul/spirit.
In short the basis for God causing the consequence of the Fall is His Holiness and Justice.

1) Scripture does not say God "constituted" humankind, but Romans 5:19 says God made humankind "sinners." To be made a sinner, while having not done anything good or evil (Romans 9:11) must mean to be made with the consequence of sin, corruption so they are predisposed to sin, and separation from God, conceived in the realm of darkness.

Calvinism makes God the author of sin, because God ordains (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass. But in the next sentence, Calvinism says God is not the author of sin. So OTOH, God predestines every sin, yet does not predestine every sin.

Behold the cognitive dissonance of Calvinism.
1) If a person is unable to seek God, are they sinning when not seeking God?
2) If a person is punished for not seeking God, are they punished because God made them unable to seek God?
3) Thus the "T" of the Tulip is unbiblical, because it removed human responsibility for sin.

Who would embrace this irrational and unbiblical twaddle?

 

[George Antonios]

I understand my position, I’m asking for yours.

How did God “constitute” mankind after the fall and what was the basis for doing so?

peace to you

I think we're talking past each other here.
Our point is that in that in the Calvinist system God is unjust, unlike in the non-Cal system. Here's why:
men don't ultimately go to hell for the sins they do - they ultimately go to hell for rejecting the cure which is Christ.
So, yes, even in the non-Cal system, men inherit a fallen sinful nature with a propensity to sin, but that doesn't guarantee their damnation since they remain free to simply believe on Christ.
However, in the Calvinist system, they inherit something (inability to see their condition and believe the gospel) which guarantees their damnation.

 

[canadyjd]

I think we're talking past each other here.
Our point is that in that in the Calvinist system God is unjust, unlike in the non-Cal system. Here's why:
men don't ultimately go to hell for the sins they do - they ultimately go to hell for rejecting the cure which is Christ.
So, yes, even in the non-Cal system, men inherit a fallen sinful nature with a propensity to sin, but that doesn't guarantee their damnation since they remain free to simply believe on Christ.
However, in the Calvinist system, they inherit something (inability to see their condition and believe the gospel) which guarantees their damnation.

You say people “ultimately go to hell” for rejecting Jesus Christ and that can “always believe on Christ”.

What about those that never heard the gospel, or the name Jesus?

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Sin causes a separation from our Holy God. To be made sinners refers to our condition at conception.
Mark 7:21 illustrates the corruption of our soul/spirit.
In short the basis for God causing the consequence of the Fall is His Holiness and Justice.......?

On that, we agree.

On your interpretation of what Calvinists believe, you are wrong.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

You say people “ultimately go to hell” for rejecting Jesus Christ and that can “always believe on Christ”.

What about those that never heard the gospel, or the name Jesus?

peace to you

Altogether different topic that.

 

[George Antonios]

@canadyjd Do you believe that God hardens all non-elect people?

 

[canadyjd]

Altogether different topic that.

It’s still relevant to this discussion.

You have agreed God has “constituted” mankind with a sin nature as a result of the fall that condemns them without Christ.

You state your position is different from the Calvinists because mankind still has the ability to respond to the gospel with “free will” while the Calvinists say they are unable unless God intervenes to make them able.

The Calvinists will say everyone God has chosen will hear the gospel and be saved.

You say mankind will go to hell for rejecting Jesus, not for sin.

So, what happens to those who never hear the gospel or the name of Jesus? They never get the chance to accept or reject: they still have a sin nature as a result of God “constituting” them with a sin nature and are separated from God:

Will they go to hell?

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

@canadyjd Do you believe that God hardens all non-elect people?

No, it’s not necessary since elect and non-elect are equally unable to respond to the gospel without God intervention.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

No, it’s not necessary since elect and non-elect are equally unable to respond to the gospel without God intervention.

peace to you

So who is it that God hardens?

 

[canadyjd]

So who is it that God hardens?

Scripture gives the example of pharaoh, and says God hardens whom He will harden and have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

In that context, the “hardening” is not to prevent Pharaoh from salvation (which appears to me the point you are trying to make) but to accomplish God’s will in bringing the Hebrew people out of slavery with mighty miracles.

Scripture also speaks of the Jewish people (generally not totally) being blinded to the truth of the gospel so that by their rejection the gospel would go to the Gentiles until the fullness comes and the “veil” is lifted.

Again, the emphasis is on God accomplishing His will.

I do not believe anyone is seeking God without intervention of God Holy Spirit so I reject the idea that Calvinism teaches God “hardens” people (non-elect) to keep them from accepting Christ.

Now, I have answered your question directly, will you answer mine?

What happens to those folks that never hear the gospel or the name of Jesus if people only go to hell for rejecting the gospel?

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

In that context, the “hardening” is not to prevent Pharaoh from salvation (which appears to me the point you are trying to make) but to accomplish God’s will in bringing the Hebrew people out of slavery with mighty miracles.

Scripture also speaks of the Jewish people (generally not totally) being blinded to the truth of the gospel so that by their rejection the gospel would go to the Gentiles until the fullness comes and the “veil” is lifted.

That's precisely the non-Calvinist take and many, many Calvinists would disagree with you about Pharaoh.

Now, I have answered your question directly, will you answer mine?

What happens to those folks that never hear the gospel or the name of Jesus if people only go to hell for rejecting the gospel?

You already asked that in another thread and I already answered it:

 

[George Antonios]

Scripture gives the example of pharaoh, and says God hardens whom He will harden and have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

In that context, the “hardening” is not to prevent Pharaoh from salvation (which appears to me the point you are trying to make) but to accomplish God’s will in bringing the Hebrew people out of slavery with mighty miracles.

Scripture also speaks of the Jewish people (generally not totally) being blinded to the truth of the gospel so that by their rejection the gospel would go to the Gentiles until the fullness comes and the “veil” is lifted.

Again, the emphasis is on God accomplishing His will.

I do not believe anyone is seeking God without intervention of God Holy Spirit so I reject the idea that Calvinism teaches God “hardens” people (non-elect) to keep them from accepting Christ.

Now, I have answered your question directly, will you answer mine?

What happens to those folks that never hear the gospel or the name of Jesus if people only go to hell for rejecting the gospel?

peace to you

So God doesn't harden anyone against the gospel?
Or God hardens only most Jews against the gospel?
Could you please clarify those points?

 

[canadyjd]

That's precisely the non-Calvinist take and many, many Calvinists would disagree with you about Pharaoh.

You already asked that in another thread and I already answered it:

View attachment 4726

I’m glad we agree about the “hardening” of Pharaoh. I don’t know what all “Calvinists” believe, but I would be surprised if “many, many” believe God hardens the heart of the non-elect that are desiring salvation to keep them out.

I did ask you in another thread about those who never heard. If I remember, your answer was vague.

Would you please tell me again and elaborate somewhat more directly, particularly how it relates to how God has “constituted” mankind after the fall?

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

So God doesn't harden anyone against the gospel?
Or God hardens only most Jews against the gospel?
Could you please clarify those points?

Sure, I said God doesn’t harden the non-elect that are desiring salvation to keep them from being saved because no one seeks God for salvation unless God intervenes in their lives. All elect will be saved, whether Jew or Gentile.

As far as the Jews and the “blindness” to the gospel, again this is to fulfill God’s plan that the gospel goes to the Gentiles, not that God is keeping any particular person from salvation. All elect will be saved, whether Jew or Gentile, and no one seeks God for salvation unless Holy Spirit intervenes in their lives.

It’s not just that the gospel, Christ and Him crucified, was rejected. The gospel is rejected so violently and throughly by Israel that it goes to the Gentiles.

There were many schools of thought in first century Judaism, but all were debated from the standpoint they were part of the Jewish faith.

The violent rejection of a “crucified Messiah” eventually displaced Christianity from being accepted as part of Judaism, both by Jewish leaders and by the Roman government.

And so, the purpose of God sending the gospel to the Gentiles was accomplished.

peace to you