Featured Romans 5:12 - the only possible view

This is exactly what I was talking about. This view makes it a sin to tell the truth for the unregenerate man. EVERYTHING he does must be sin in this view.

This is to make a mockery of God's laws. If it is a sin to be honest, then why be honest? If it is a sin to be faithful to your wife, then why be faithful?

This view is totally messed up to say the least.

 

So, those Jews who didn't shave their beard, in accordance with the law, didn't provide the proper response to that law? Those who tithed didn't provide the proper response?

Ironic you say that because my view of sin and sinners seems to be far worse and deep than yours.

Allow me to explain why:

Which of our doctrinal views actually exalt the nature of fallen man? Most seem to think that those of us who affirm man's free will (responsibility) exalt the nature of man. They argue that because mankind is born unable to respond that somehow means he is worse and if he is able to respond that somehow we think too highly of men. But which is actually worse?

1. A man born with a mental disability making him violent, prone to rage and unable to control his behavior who murder others?
​

OR

2. A man born sane and healthy who rationally deliberates and chooses to murder another out of greed, jealousy or spite?
​

Obviously the latter is considered much worse in our system of justice. We might put the first guy in a hospital instead of a jail as 'innocent by reason of insanity,' but not the second guy. He is RESPONSIBLE...CULPABLE. So, lets apply this analogy to our doctrinal perspectives. Which view actually has a higher view of humanity?

1. A man born hated by God, total unable to even respond to God's appeal to be reconciled, enslaved by his inborn nature to sin, unable to willingly repent of his sin even when asked to by God's own words, sealed from birth in this totally depraved and hopeless condition for all of eternity.

OR

2. A man born fallen, yet love by his Creator; sinful, yet being pursued by a loving merciful Savior genuinely appealing for his return to what he was originally created for; enslaved, but provided a means for escape; an enemy, but given the hope for reconciliation. And in the face of this truth, this love, this merciful and gracious provision, he chooses of his OWN free and sane will to deliberately walk away from the creator who loves and provides for him.​

I don't know about you but the second dude seems a lot worse and more deserving of punishment than the first. Sure, the first, due to the federal headship of Adam, does deserved hell, I'm not arguing otherwise, but in light of the second guy, you almost just feel sorry for the first guy. I mean, he was born like that. He had no way out. I know, I know, I'm not saying he deserved a way out, don't get caught up on that, as that is not my point. I'm saying that a free will view of mankind is not higher, but its much much lower than the alternative.

 

This view is ridiculous and nonsensical. In your view, when an unregenerate man tells the truth it is sin. Someone could simply ask him the time of day, he could look at his watch and say Three o'clock, and that would be a sin in your view.

This is to make the law completely unnecessary. What purpose does it serve?

Jesus said sinners can do good;

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

It is not a sin to do good to those who do good to you. A person should do good to those that do good to him. Yes, it is a greater good to do good to those who do not treat you well, nevertheless, it is no sin to do good to those who do good to you.

Your view makes the law nonsensical and unnecessary. If everything an unregenerate man does is evil, then why is law necessary?

 

I understand, but you still don't seem to follow the fault of your own logic. I'll repost it for you:

1. Man cannot keep every demand of the law
2. Therefore man cannot keep any demands of the law
3. If man cannot keep any demands of the law then he cannot keep any demand at all.

Now, that is being clarified to mean:

1. Man cannot have the right intent when following any of God's laws thus they always fall short.
2. Thus, man cannot have the right intent when told they will be forgiven if they simply admit #1 is true and ask for help.

Does that sum it up?

 

I still think this part is worthy of response, because it dispels the misnomer that Calvinism somehow has a better doctrine of sin and lower view of man than we do...

 

If I sacrificed my child for them, sent them countless messengers making an appeal for them to be reconciled, I don't see why their will might not be provoked to reconsider.

Is that your only rebuttal? You suppose a person who hates me couldn't be reconciled to me, despite MY pettily little efforts and that somehow proves God's efforts couldn't even enable a response?

As a Calvinist, you believe God is able to effectually change man's nature, but doesn't that mean God would equally be able to enable a man's nature to respond...as a responsible person?

 

You do have a lot of bulk in your posts at times, and like you sometimes I try to sum it up in a quote or two in order to keep each post manageable. Plus, we have like 6 posts going on at the same time and some of the issues have already been addressed. If I skip something, just do what I do to you and repost it. I'll look back at it in a sec...if what you say below doesn't cover it, then I'll address it again.

huhhhh...that is call the GOSPEL...HIS WORD. I wouldn't spend too much time down playing that as being 'too dated' to have the desired outcome if I were you...just saying.

Americans are becoming increasingly more hardened to the gospel, as we (like Israel in those days) have been more saturated with the light of revelation.

Speaking of experience in evangelism, don't you notice that younger people are typically more open to responding than older? Also, have you noticed those who don't already belong to another religion tend to be more receptive? This speaks to the condition and ability of the heart too, because if these stats are true they support the idea of one being less likely to accept if they have grown more calloused in their ways and especially if they have been raised to believe another religious view.

Interestingly, stats also show that those who tend to adopt Calvinism are more often younger white males. Wonder why God chooses to reveal this doctrine to young white guys more than other cultural or gender groups?