Saved at birth? Part 2

[Isaiah40:28]

PLEASE notice at the end of the chapter that King Neb understands the sovereignty of God, Right. This is what you wanted to hear but notice how King Neb knew that he was walking in pride. (VS37) He is saying that I made decision to ignor God and He judged me because only he is truth and the only one who can judge. So we see both Sovereignty of God and free will of man right? I thought you would agree...

Yes, we see that the King was free to ignore God.
No one disputes that man is free to be rebellious to God.
That's what sinners do.
What you have to show is how man is free to want and desire God apart from the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit.

So, He can do as He wills, only in accord with His attributes like truth, holiness, righteousness, and love. God has placed some restrictions on himself. Such as to not violate the will of man (Gen. 3) and He does not act contrary to His own nature (Gen 18:25). So He is sovereign in that He can do that He wills and which is in accord with His nature. Man made in God's image has a free will.
If things are so "mechanical" as you say or think, then this would leave no room for real human responsibility or accountability, or ground for a final judgement, nor place for Holy Spirit conviction to respond to our Maker. Why would God, under these "elected" conditions plead with man to repent and "turn" to him, and why would he grieve over man not heeding His call?

Yet God fully knows the outcome of each man's destiny.
So He pleads with men to turn to Him all the while knowing the exact ones who won't.
Is God confused?
Disingenuous with His offer?
Hoping against hope He can change what He already knows to be a certainty?

 

[Jarthur001]

We became like Adam, in the same way Adam became like Adam...by sinning.

We are made in the image of God not in a sense, but in actuallity. Sin has put a death sentence on what has been deemed "good" (as in all creation), but that still does not take away from the fact we are free moral agents.
I agree we are not good...I don't agree we don't choose God. God has initiated our choosing Him, but it is still us that choose Him, or else He chooses Himself which defies all logic.

This is the most open display of Pelagianism I have seen on this board

 

[webdog]

This is the most open display of Pelagianism I have seen on this board

...and this is the most open display of ignorance of what Pelagianism actually is on this board.

 

[Amy.G]

If no one is good and no one seeks God, then who is it that chooses God?

Even the disciples didn't choose Him.

 

[webdog]

If no one is good and no one seeks God, then who is it that chooses God?

Even the disciples didn't choose Him.

You are mixing "choosings", Amy.

If no one seeks God...is God fibbing by telling man to seek Him?

 

[Amy.G]

You are mixing "choosings", Amy.

If no one seeks God...is God fibbing by telling man to seek Him?

Is God fibbing when He says:


Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

 

[Jarthur001]

...and this is the most open display of ignorance of what Pelagianism actually is on this board.

“Omne bonum ac malum, quo vel laudabiles vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum oritur, sed agitur a nobis: capaces enim utriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine virtute, ita et sine vitio procreamur: atque ante actionem propriæ voluntatis, id solum in homine est, quod Deus condidit.”157157Pelagius, Apud Augustinum de Peccato Originali, 14; Works, edit. Benedictines, vol. x. p. 573, a. b. Again, “Volens namque Deus rationabilem creaturam voluntarii boni munere et liberi arbitrii potestate donare, utriusque partis possibilitatem homini inserendo proprium ejus fecit, esse quod velit; ut boni ac mali capax, natural iter utrumque posset, et ad alterumque voluntatem deflecteret.”

 

[Jarthur001]

You are mixing "choosings", Amy.

If no one seeks God...is God fibbing by telling man to seek Him?

The radical principle of the Pelagian theory is, that ability limits obligation. “If I ought, I can,” is the aphorism on which the whole system rests. Augustine's celebrated prayer, “Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis,” was pronounced by Pelagius an absurdity, because it assumed that God can demand more than man render, and what man must receive as a gift.

 

[Jarthur001]

You are mixing "choosings", Amy.

If no one seeks God...is God fibbing by telling man to seek Him?

another one that says just what you said..

“Iterum quærendum est, peccatum voluntatis an necessitatis est? Si necessitatis est, peccatum non est; si voluntatis, vitari potest. Iterum quærendum est, utrumne debeat homo sine peccato esse? Procul dubio debet. Si debet potest; si non potest, ergo non debet. Et si non debet homo esse sine peccato, debet ergo cum peccato esse, et jam peccatum non erit, si illud deberi constiterit.

Like I said...pure pelagianism

 

[JustChristian]

another one that says just what you said..

“Iterum quærendum est, peccatum voluntatis an necessitatis est? Si necessitatis est, peccatum non est; si voluntatis, vitari potest. Iterum quærendum est, utrumne debeat homo sine peccato esse? Procul dubio debet. Si debet potest; si non potest, ergo non debet. Et si non debet homo esse sine peccato, debet ergo cum peccato esse, et jam peccatum non erit, si illud deberi constiterit.

Like I said...pure pelagianism

We're all "impressed" but could you please post in English? I had 3 years of Latin in high school but its been a while (40 years).

 

[webdog]

Is God fibbing when He says:


Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

This has been discussed here before, but the key is "as it is written". Who was David talking about in the Psalms (14, 53)? Those who opposed God...not those who weren't granted that right to seek him. Paul, being a Jew, knew the OT quite well.

If you equate this to all mankind, then all mankind is seeking to shed blood, too. I've never had the urge to shed anybody's blood...you?

 

[webdog]

another one that says just what you said..

“Iterum quærendum est, peccatum voluntatis an necessitatis est? Si necessitatis est, peccatum non est; si voluntatis, vitari potest. Iterum quærendum est, utrumne debeat homo sine peccato esse? Procul dubio debet. Si debet potest; si non potest, ergo non debet. Et si non debet homo esse sine peccato, debet ergo cum peccato esse, et jam peccatum non erit, si illud deberi constiterit.

Like I said...pure pelagianism

For those who like english, let's see what pelagianism is (summarized from wikipedia)

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is therefore devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology.

Nothing I said even remotely resembles this, except the rejection of augustinian original sin. Just because one does not agree with original sin does not equate to one being pelagian any more than one beliving in the Trinity should be labeled a catholic.

 

[Amy.G]

This has been discussed here before, but the key is "as it is written". Who was David talking about in the Psalms (14, 53)? Those who opposed God...not those who weren't granted that right to seek him. Paul, being a Jew, knew the OT quite well.

If you equate this to all mankind, then all mankind is seeking to shed blood, too. I've never had the urge to shed anybody's blood...you?

I didn't quote the psalms. I quoted Paul who quoted psalms. What is the context in which Paul is speaking?

 

[PK]

US...the saved...the believers the writer addresses....are the elect PK.

Agreed. But we are the elect after salvation has occured not before. This is why Paul said "us"


I address this already as well. Groups are made up of people and God knows the heart of every person PK. I asked before, did God know Cain would not believe? Yes...and then God made Cain just the way he was...and guess what...Cain did not believe. Now I know this is RAW and not backed...but this story can answer alot for you. Just think about it for a few days...and if need be we will break it down.

So God is responsible for Cain sin? Wow...Chapter and Verse please.[/I]

 

[Amy.G]

Agreed. But we are the elect after salvation has occured not before. This is why Paul said "us"
[/I]

How do you become elect after salvation?

Chapter and verse please.

 

[Rippon]

Agreed. But we are the elect after salvation has occured not before. This is why Paul said "us"

Rippon : Ephesians 1:4 : for He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world , to be holy and blameless in His sight .

2 Thessalonians 2:13 : But we must always thank God for you , brothers loved by the Lord , because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through the belief in the truth .

2 Timothy 1:9 : who has saved us and called us with a holy calling , not according to our works , but according to His own purpose and grace , which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began .

All of my Scripture references are from the HCSB .

Summary from the Bible : We are elect before the foundation of the world . We do not become elect after salvation .

 

[Jarthur001]

US...the saved...the believers the writer addresses....are the elect PK.

Agreed. But we are the elect after salvation has occured not before. This is why Paul said "us"


I address this already as well. Groups are made up of people and God knows the heart of every person PK. I asked before, did God know Cain would not believe? Yes...and then God made Cain just the way he was...and guess what...Cain did not believe. Now I know this is RAW and not backed...but this story can answer alot for you. Just think about it for a few days...and if need be we will break it down.

So God is responsible for Cain sin? Wow...Chapter and Verse please.[/I]

What part about cain did you disagree with?

1) did God know Cain would not believe?

2) Yes (my answer to 1)

3) and then God made Cain just the way he was......?

4) Cain did not believe.....?

PK..what I am tring to show you, and what Amy has said a few pages back, is that if followed to the end, when you use "God elects based in what He fore-sees", this works out to the same as the Supralapsarian Calvinist. However..the Calvinist view gives all the glory to God. The way you express it (through foreseen faith) gives glory to those people that are smart.

I only posted your view, but you felt I was saying my view. To me...and I may be wrong...but to me it shows you have not taken your view to the end and seen this before. I'm sure you agree with all 4 statements above....right?


Now..do not get mad and leave. When faced with this for the 1st time, many freewillers kick and run. I don't want you to do that. Hang in there and lets get to the truth. You have not dodged the issue, but have hit it head on. What will you do about it?


**********

The other statement has been addressed by others.

 

[Allan]

What part about cain did you disagree with?

1) did God know Cain would not believe?

2) Yes (my answer to 1)

3) and then God made Cain just the way he was......?

4) Cain did not believe.....?

PK..what I am tring to show you, and what Amy has said a few pages back, is that if followed to the end, when you use "God elects based in what He fore-sees", this works out to the same as the Supralapsarian Calvinist. However..the Calvinist view gives all the glory to God. The way you express it (through foreseen faith) gives glory to those people that are smart.

I only posted your view, but you felt I was saying my view. To me...and I may be wrong...but to me it shows you have not taken your view to the end and seen this before. I'm sure you agree with all 4 statements above....right?


Now..do not get mad and leave. When faced with this for the 1st time, many freewillers kick and run. I don't want you to do that. Hang in there and lets get to the truth. You have not dodged the issue, but have hit it head on. What will you do about it?


**********

The other statement has been addressed by others.

I don't particularly want to get into your discussion right now James, but of course I wanted to correct one thing.

It isn't that they were smart but they were willing.
If we were so smart we would not be in the mess we made to begin with :thumbs:

just being an antagonizer here :laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

For those who like english, let's see what pelagianism is (summarized from wikipedia)

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is therefore devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology.

Nothing I said even remotely resembles this, except the rejection of augustinian original sin. Just because one does not agree with original sin does not equate to one being pelagian any more than one beliving in the Trinity should be labeled a catholic.

Web.....

The battle cry of Coelestius, Pelagius, and Julian was...."If I ought, I can"

This is why they were kicked out of the church.

The main point on which the whole free will system is found, contradicts the consciousness of men. Every man knows that he is bound to be better than he is, and better than he can make himself on his own. We are bound to love God perfectly, but we know that perfect love is beyond our power. We are told to be free from all sin, and absolutely conformed to the perfect law of God. Yet no man is so foolish or so blinded to his own being to really believe that he either is perfect, or has the power to make himself so.

"If I ought, I can" tells us man is able. The Bible tells us we are not.

 

[Jarthur001]

I don't particularly want to get into your discussion right now James, but of course I wanted to correct one thing.

It isn't that they were smart but they were willing.
If we were so smart we would not be in the mess we made to begin with :thumbs:

just being an antagonizer here :laugh:

To late now Allan...you are in it up to your head.

I know you did not make that statement without at least thinking I would ask this...

What makes them willing?

Time to go....I'll be back late tonight.

In Christ...James