Romans 5:12 - the only possible view

[Winman]

Sorry, but I never saw this post and that is why I never responded.

In scriptures the word "hear" not merely means ability to receive but provide the proper response. So your argument is technically false.

This shows you have a very superficial understanding of the Biblical view of sin. Sin has its root in HEART MOTIVE and that is why God looks upon the heart rather than the REACTIONS of the heart (although the reaction can be obvous sin as well) If the motive is wrong than ALL ATTITUDES, WORDS AND ACTIONS resulting from that motive is wrong - sin.

The ONLY proper motive is "whatsoever ye say or do...DO ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD" and that is why all men without exception have "come short of THE GLORY OF GOD."

Since "motive" underlies all REACTIONS or EVERYTHING you thinks, say or do then to violate one point of the law is to violate every point of the law as wrong motive is behnd every violation of the law.

Postively speaking the only right motive is a PRIORITIZED LOVE that has God first and others second.

No lost man, or all "in the flesh" DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT MOTIVE for anything they think, say or do and that is precisely why they must first have a NEW heart before they can imagine, think, say or do ANYTHING that pleases God.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

In scriptures the word "hear" not merely means ability to receive but provide the proper response. So your argument is technically false.

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?

This shows you have a very superficial understanding of the Biblical view of sin.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

Do you understand the difference between MOTIVE and its FRUIT of thoughts, words and actions (Mt. 15)? I will assume you understand.

The fruit is external and can appear as "whited" and "washed" when it is only so in APPEARANCE before men or a cover up of evil = selfish motives. However, God LOOKS UPON THE HEART instead because He is not convinced by APPEARANCES. When he looks at the heart He can see if the motive is SELFISH or for God's glory which positively defined is a prioritized love that has God first and others second. All else is sin no matter how good it looks.

Second, all sin is sin, but in regard to judgement there are some sins worse than others and will receive worse punishement. For example, when your sin INVOLVES and IMPLICATES others or the downfall of others that is worse. This is the case of adultery and murder. On the other hand THOUGHT sins restrained to withn the confines of your mind (covetuousness) are not ALWAYS (can be if manifested by murder, adultery, etc.) as evil in their EXTERNAL consequences as adultery, murder, etc.

Now, let us deal with Winman's view that men can do "good" things or can obey God's Laws. Yes, they can do that OUTWARDLY and this OUTWARD form of obedience is certainly better than what even men condemn as outward evil. However, in God's sight it is only WHITE WASH because it originates from the wrong motives and there is but ONE proper motive - the glory of God and "all have sinned and comes short of THE GLORY OF GOD" from birth to death.

 

[Winman]

Now, let us deal with Winman's view that men can do "good" things or can obey God's Laws. Yes, they can do that OUTWARDLY and this OUTWARD form of obedience is certainly better than what even men condemn as outward evil. However, in God's sight it is only WHITE WASH because it originates from the wrong motives and there is but ONE proper motive - the glory of God and "all have sinned and comes short of THE GLORY OF GOD" from birth to death.

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?

 

[Skandelon]

Do you understand the difference between MOTIVE and its FRUIT of thoughts, words and actions (Mt. 15)? I will assume you understand.

The fruit is external and can appear as "whited" and "washed" when it is only so in APPEARANCE .

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?

 

[Skandelon]

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...

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

You are presenting this in a QUANTITATIVE inability

2. Therefore man cannot keep any demands of the law

Now, you are demanding that QUANTATIVE inability is the cause of for SPECIFIC individualized inability. However, I don't beleive in this kind of logic or doctrine at all. This is pure fantasy on your part.

3. If man cannot keep any demands of the law then he cannot keep any demand at all.

This is not my argument or my position as this is totally illogical.

My position is that when you violate ONE POINT you violate ALL POINTS because they are inseparably united by a common principle which when violated violates the whole of the law. That common principle was positively defined as "love."

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.

NO, it is means he DOES NOT HAVE the right intent -because he does not have the RIGHT HEART. he ALWAYS comes short of this motive - always. Heart transplant is beyond his pay grade. That is why he is a sinner BY NATURE as the problem is found in the deepest part of his nature - his heart.

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.

Try this with a person who hates you and denies they are in the wrong and see what you get.

Does that sum it up?

No, it does not sum it up at all. It is a train wreck.

 

[Skandelon]

Try this with a person who hates you and denies they are in the wrong and see what you get.

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?

 

[The Biblicist]

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 have ignored the entirety of my post on the nature of sin and focused only on my last statement! I think your greater problem is the bulk of my post and my last statement is being used simply to avoid the bulk.

You are basically arguing that a declaration of love by sacrifice over 2000 years ago can change a person who loves sin, hates light and loves darkness to change his love life. I present this message to lost people over the years and the number rejecting it is far far far more than those who received it. In those who received it none claimed they obtained it by simple choice but by a supernatural encounter with God that CHANGED their opinion about sin, about their love for sin and love for darkness.

 

[Skandelon]

You have ignored the entirety of my post on the nature of sin and focused only on my last statement! I think your greater problem is the bulk of my post and my last statement is being used simply to avoid the bulk.

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.

You are basically arguing that a declaration of love by sacrifice over 2000 years ago can change a person who loves sin

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.

I present this message to lost people over the years and the number rejecting it is far far far more than those who received it.

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?