T - Total Depravity

[Iconoclast]

Inspector Javert

Hello IJ,

The "problem" is actually your mis-reading,and speculation on what a human man says....then projecting and offering it ,in a way the man did not.Let me pull out where and how you did this, because all of you do this over and over.....maybe if you see it ....you will cease and desist.

God is clearly shown according to these statements to:

1.) need evil to exist in order to more perfectly glorify himself (rendering him anything but self-sufficient)

Where did he say that God....NEEDED.....anything as you allege?
When you project your own wrong ideas about God....[The God of Calvinism] You go where the writer did not.He did not use that word...so do not insert it for him,He could have wrote that if he wanted to, but he did not.
No one wants to defend an idea that the accuser supplies for them.So stop it:wavey:

2.) be the originator and initial intender of all evil

The fact that evil exists in a created universe indicates the Creator has a Holy, just, and righteous purpose for it.To vainly speculate that you or others could help God out by suggesting better ways, or how you might have done things ,is why JOB 38-39 is in scripture;

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.


9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

There's nothing to "understand" about it....it's very straighforward. And yes, there is VERY much which is wrong with it.

So you say my friend...however upon closer examination your objection will be over-ruled as defective:thumbsup:

“God controls everything that is and everything that happens.
There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed –
not even a single thought in the mind of man.
Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, [as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power.

Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions,
evil could never have started without God’s active decree,
and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will.
God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil.”([13] Cheung, Vincent. “Problem of Evil,” )

I am serious, and the answer to your question is this:
God is clearly shown according to these statements to:

3.) Evil is itself now in no meaningful sense something which is against God's will or design, but rather perfectly in consequent with God's perfect wishes....to do "evil" is, by definition to obey precisely God's intentions for your actions.........To do "evil" is to essentially obey God's highest will for your life. Evil essentially re-defined as "good".

This was answered in my lengthy quotes from both Calvin and Pink...I refer you to it. While God has ONE will of decree......What He will's for man is obeyed or not obeyed by man....never perfectly in this life and will be judged as to what kind of works they were 1 cor3
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

4.) God is essentially rendered a deciever and dis-ingenuous....

This classic kind of ungodly rejection should not take place.No Christian believes or speaks about God in this way....so what is the problem that causes YOU and your friends to say this all the time.
The problem is with you ,and your wrong views of the attributes of the biblical God....over time God willing....you will see this more clearly.

If God commands man to do one thing, and yet it is also clear that he has no real INTENTION (or actual desire) for them to obey him,

Where do you get off saying that HE[God} has no real intention???? to do anything! Or...he has no ACTUAL DESIRE....???
If you have these kind of thoughts and all of you seem to be plagued by them...it is time to re-examine your theological conclusions...they are off the rails....It is not the Cal...it is you and your friends...feeding on hate sites...devoted to undermining the Truth of God. You are welcome to view as you will...we also are welcome do see it as we do.

but rather He MOST intends them to sin instead, than he is being false whenever he claims to desire men to do "right".

this is the same kind of statement....you turn every discussion into a watershed event...once you go off from the historic confessions of faith...you turn into an avalanche of error.

God is shown as pretending to be broken-hearted even angered over men's sins whereas in truth

,

The anthropomorphic language used in scripture is another discussion.

we know that he has ACTIVELY decreed them

,

Anything that takes place was decreed...or it would not take place,yet the decree is not the cause.....do you understand that?

Judas was not told...go betray me.....then Judas said ...no way...i do not want to...but I feel the pressure to betray you as the power of the decree overwhelms me???? Judas wanted the silver...he got what he wanted.then he got the results of his evil choice....
If team anti cal jihad would spend more time welcoming truth than inventing semantical ,philosophical , reasonings, ...you could be helping understand it even more...by now.

and that it is his greatest desire that men do precisely what he is pretending to be broken-hearted about.

Once you are off track...you make this kind of evil accusation about the biblical God.

5.) Evil, is now not something which originates with man but rather God....

Blaming God for mans sin...is what Adam did.....the woman you gave me
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

The Father merely punishes his Son on the cross for "sins" which he intended the "elect" to make in the first place..

..

When the Godhead made the Covenant of Redemption.....they did not need your help thinking it out...as shocking as that might be to you.That is what it was perfectly planned before the world was;
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

6.)God is according to this the cause of wickedness, not man.

This is why you and the others are to be rejected...it is always blame God for mans sin....proving the truth of Romans 5....Adam was federal head for all sinners.

The PROBLEM, Icon, is that these things are un-Scriptural and not descriptive of the God of the Bible,

I agree that the caricature that you men offer...is very unscriptural.
I recommend the Baptist Cathechism with Commentary, followed by the 1689 Confession of faith, then Some Dagg, then some Boyce, then some John Murray redemption accomplished and applied...as a remedy to what ails you.

they are absolutely absurd, and yet it is the inescapable conclusions of a ANTI-Calvinist- Jihad- Schema

 

[Winman]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Convicted was right in one sense...that his previous view was incorrect that an infant had some automatic "grace":

Correct, if babies are born wicked sinners, why should they receive special grace?

Truth is, almost nobody truly believes babies are sinners, and this is why nearly everyone, including most Calvinists, try to invent a way for God to save children outside faith in Christ. Deep down they know babies are completely innocent. But because of the false doctrine of Original Sin, men must depart from truth even deeper into error and invent false and non-scriptural ways of salvation!

That is not true........
But, that doesn't render a new-born damned; it renders a new-born as one who knows yet no sin and is in no need of grace. Such a being is spoken of: as being one who "needs no repentance".

Exactly, and this is what Jesus shows in both Matthew 18 and Luke 15;

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Jesus NEVER spoke evil of little children, he told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. Was Jesus telling his disciples they must become wicked sinners to enter heaven? ABSURD!

It was also when Jesus spoke of children that he spoke of 99 "just persons which went not astray" and "need no repentance"

The alternative and Scriptural view to both errors, was that the Augustinian model of mankind being Originally Guilty of sin is false.

BINGO! We have a winner here.

A newborn is NEITHER an automatic recipient of "grace"
NOR are they an automatic partaker in Adam's guilt..........that's Augustinianism.

All men who perish do so for their OWN sins, not Adam's.....all who receive God's grace are shown mercy for their OWN sins too. We may inherit a propensity to sin from Adam, we inherit physical death from Adam...we may inherit a will which is pre-disposed inescapably to sin from Adam. We may inherit a nature and an environment which will necessarily lead us towards ultimate sin.....but we aren't GUILTY of anything from Adam any more than we were born SAVED from anything Christ did.

Willis you were choosing between two false views, based upon a flawed premise. Given a choice between the two, I chose to believe as you now do as well. But, it's the long held premise from which both erroneous views spring that is the source of error.

There is only one time in scripture that the term "in Adam" is used (look it up and see for yourself), and that is 1 Corinthians 15:22;

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Does this verse say all men are born dead in Adam? NO, it says that in Adam "all DIE". That is FUTURE TENSE. You must be ALIVE to DIE. This is the only verse in all of scripture that uses the term "in Adam" and it actually refutes Original Sin, it proves that men are NOT born dead in sin.

What's more, this verse is speaking of PHYSICAL death only, not spiritual. The entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians concerns the physical resurrection of our bodies, not spiritual death.

False teachers have pulled this verse out of context and misinterpreted it to teach Original Sin, when in reality this verse refutes it.

There is not one verse in scripture that says men are born dead in sin. It cannot be shown.

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Convicted was right in one sense...that his previous view was incorrect that an infant had some automatic "grace":


That is not true........
But, that doesn't render a new-born damned; it renders a new-born as one who knows yet no sin and is in no need of grace. Such a being is spoken of: as being one who "needs no repentance".

The alternative and Scriptural view to both errors, was that the Augustinian model of mankind being Originally Guilty of sin is false.

A newborn is NEITHER an automatic recipient of "grace"
NOR are they an automatic partaker in Adam's guilt..........that's Augustinianism.

All men who perish do so for their OWN sins, not Adam's.....all who receive God's grace are shown mercy for their OWN sins too. We may inherit a propensity to sin from Adam, we inherit physical death from Adam...we may inherit a will which is pre-disposed inescapably to sin from Adam. We may inherit a nature and an environment which will necessarily lead us towards ultimate sin.....but we aren't GUILTY of anything from Adam any more than we were born SAVED from anything Christ did.

Willis you were choosing between two false views, based upon a flawed premise. Given a choice between the two, I chose to believe as you now do as well. But, it's the long held premise from which both erroneous views spring that is the source of error.

In Adam.....ALL Sinned...as long as that is in the bible...your theory is not.
Willis hit the bullseye.

 

[webdog]

In Adam.....ALL Sinned...as long as that is in the bible...your theory is not.
Willis hit the bullseye.

Since Scripture connects this group ( so as...) with all being righteous in Christ, either you are a universalist or that doesn't mean what you teach. Must be one.

 

[Winman]

In Adam.....ALL Sinned...as long as that is in the bible...your theory is not.
Willis hit the bullseye.

Here you go, a perversion and abuse of scripture right before your eyes. :thumbsup:

The term "in Adam" is used only ONCE in scripture. It does not say that "in Adam all sinned" as Iconoclast falsely said, it does not say "in Adam all are dead in sin" as many falsely teach. It says that "in Adam all die". This is speaking of physical death only and is in the future tense. Even if this verse was speaking of spiritual death (but it isn't), it would prove that men are born spiritually alive. You must be alive to "die".

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The problem is most folks are ignorant of what scripture really says and believes false teaching like you just saw from Iconoclast.

 

[Inspector Javert]

In Adam.....ALL Sinned...as long as that is in the bible...your theory is not.
Willis hit the bullseye.

That isn't in the Bible Icon, read it again.

Willis is the nicest, kindest most intellectually honest man I've seen on this board, but he's been lied to. He missed the mark unfortunately, and it is because of errant and un-Scriptural teaching like this. Divorce yourself from the Prostitution-enthusiasts like Augustine, and murderers like Calvin, and then you won't have these "Theologies in tension"....

Only man's Theologies are ever in "tension". The Scriptures don't create confusion. There's nothing "in tension" in the Bible....only in man's convoluted minds. Take away Augustine's "Original Guilt" pablum, and there's no secret to how simple the Scripture's teaching on the gospel is.....it's rather, (what's the word)....simple.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Here you go, a perversion and abuse of scripture right before your eyes. :thumbsup:

The term "in Adam" is used only ONCE in scripture. It does not say that "in Adam all sinned" as Iconoclast falsely said.

Yes...that's a lie. The Scriptures do not say in Adam "all sinned"....liars said that and, unfortunately, Icon seems to think that God did. Willis was unfortunately carried away by this wind of doctrine along with so many. :tear: I too was once as well.

 

[Iconoclast]

Since Scripture connects this group ( so as...) with all being righteous in Christ, either you are a universalist or that doesn't mean what you teach. Must be one.

There are two groups;

All in Adam...All born physically ....who remain in Adam...are dead spiritually and heading for second death.....

All In Christ by new birth,{spiritually born} or being born from above...have eternal life and continue on in the realm of life eternally....

Not everyone that is physically born......gets to be spiritually born....

That is exactly what it means.....

All Men are born ...in Adam......Not all men are born IN CHRIST...so
all that remain in Adam....die and go into second death
All that are translated by the Spirit are IN Christ...


All Men ever conceived physically...are in Adam

All men that are conceived physically in Adam......are not in Christ.{universalism}

A square is a rhombus.... a Rhombus is not a square:thumbsup:

 

[Protestant]

Total Depravity Proven

Arminians are united in their quest to disprove the doctrine of man’s Total Depravity.

In their theological system, man has the remnant of an ability to do that which is commanded by God: repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, man still has the ability to make good use of his ‘free will.’

In order to justify their view of man, Arminians must find exegetical loopholes which, they presume, deny man is born spiritually dead, deaf and blind...God-haters by nature.

Arminians take up the gauntlet for sin ravaged, Satan-loving man.

Calvinists prefer to stand with the righteous, holy, electing God of grace.

I would ask the reader to consider Adam in the Garden.

He, unlike his progeny, was created with original righteousness. Though he had no proclivity to sin and evil, he managed to turn his sinless nature into death and darkness by a very poor use of his truly free will.

Arminians would have us believe they were able to undo what Adam did.

They, by the good use of their somewhat free will, were able to turn their nature into true life and light, by obeying the command of God to repent and believe the Gospel.

Truly, Arminians work miracles. For all men by nature hate the light. (John 3:19) Yet they did not need the regenerating, resurrecting, creative power of the Holy Spirit. No. They, though still sin-lovers, were their own source of true life and light.

Next, let us examine the ministry of Jesus.

Why could He not make a fraction of the numbers of converts as, say, a Billy Graham? After all, Jesus is both God and sinless man, while Billy is only sinful man, (though he may be worshipped as a god).

Jesus’ doctrine was perfect, while Billy’s is full of grievous errors.

Jesus worked unprecedented miracles. He walked on water, raised the dead, healed every disease and affliction known to man, yet when push came to shove, the Jews shouted for the release of Barabbas and the disciples abandoned Him.

Why? What was ‘lacking’ in Jesus’ ministry?

The lack was not in Jesus, it was in His hearers.

They had not been given the gracious gift of the Holy Spirit whereby the spiritually dead are raised to spiritual life that they may believe spiritual truth; whereby the spiritually blind and deaf are given eyes to see and ears to hear spiritual truth.

Do you, dear reader, have the eyes to see and the ears to hear and believe spiritual truth? Have you been raised to spiritual life from that of spiritual death?

If so, it is time to leave your Arminian idols.

It is time that all praise and thanksgiving be given to Him “who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did.” (Romans 4:17)

 

[webdog]

There are two groups;

All in Adam...All born physically ....who remain in Adam...are dead spiritually and heading for second death.....

All In Christ by new birth,{spiritually born} or being born from above...have eternal life and continue on in the realm of life eternally....

Not everyone that is physically born......gets to be spiritually born....

That is exactly what it means.....

All Men are born ...in Adam......Not all men are born IN CHRIST...so
all that remain in Adam....die and go into second death
All that are translated by the Spirit are IN Christ...


All Men ever conceived physically...are in Adam

All men that are conceived physically in Adam......are not in Christ.{universalism}

A square is a rhombus.... a Rhombus is not a square:thumbsup:

You have decided to break it down to physical vs spiritual, but that is not the context. Both death and life are spiritual, hence the connection (so as). Christ died physically but not spiritually, further refuting your interpretation.

 

[webdog]

I don't try to "disprove" something thats false to begin with.

 

[convicted1]

Okay, I've read some posts about how Adam's guilt wasn't passed onto us. Now, let's look at a passage of scriptures and see what the Record of God says about this:

Romans 5:12-14

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Now, how come these people died from Adam until Moses when there was no Law? Where there is no law there is no transgression, yet, a myriad of people died w/o the Law. So here's a prime example of how Adam's guilt was passed unto us.

 

[Iconoclast]

Okay, I've read some posts about how Adam's guilt wasn't passed onto us. Now, let's look at a passage of scriptures and see what the Record of God says about this:

Now, how come these people died from Adam until Moses when there was no Law? Where there is no law there is no transgression, yet, a myriad of people died w/o the Law. So here's a prime example of how Adam's guilt was passed unto us.

Also men as image bearers{although the image is damaged by sin} still have in them ; the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

That is why at regeneration God puts His law in our hearts...to restore the broken Image......


45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

The death in Romans 5 was primarily spiritual with physical death to follow...In genesis Adam was told...in THE DAY you eat of the fruit...dying thou shalt surely die....however physical death did not come first...the way to the tree of life was blocked.....so it was in that day Spiritual death first...and it is passed on to ALL In ADAM.....those who fail to grasp this..cannot rightly understand the full implications of the gospel.Adam as a type...the Last adam making right what he messed up!

 

[Inspector Javert]

Okay, I've read some posts about how Adam's guilt wasn't passed onto us. Now, let's look at a passage of scriptures and see what the Record of God says about this:
Now, how come these people died from Adam until Moses when there was no Law? Where there is no law there is no transgression, yet, a myriad of people died w/o the Law. So here's a prime example of how Adam's guilt was passed unto us.

Hi Willis :wavey:
1.) There always was law:
Rom 2:14
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

2.) Death was passed on though, not guilt. You are still reading into Romans 5 the assumption that it is Spiritual Death or guilt of which Paul speaks and not DEATH. Divorce yourself from the pre-supposition that it is speaking of guilt and the entire chapters 5 and 6 will make themselves abundantly clear that it is primarily PHYSICAL DEATH of which Paul speaks.
Rom 5:12
¶Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses...
Rom 5:17
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof

Even the animals and creation itself (though certainly not capable of sin) suffers the curse of death.

Rom 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Rom 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Hope you find this helpful :jesus:

 

[Winman]

Okay, I've read some posts about how Adam's guilt wasn't passed onto us. Now, let's look at a passage of scriptures and see what the Record of God says about this:

Now, how come these people died from Adam until Moses when there was no Law? Where there is no law there is no transgression, yet, a myriad of people died w/o the Law. So here's a prime example of how Adam's guilt was passed unto us.

Why doesn't it say ALL MEN Willis? How come it only speaks of men from Adam to Moses? Did Original Sin only affect men from Adam to Moses?

Men from Adam to Moses died without the law, because they had the law written upon their hearts and were a law onto themselves, just as Paul had described the Gentiles in chapter 2.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul is simply explaining why men from Adam to Moses died. If he were teaching Original Sin, he would have said ALL MEN. Isn't that so Willis? Think about it.

Paul is not saying Adam's sin was imputed to men, in fact, the scripture very specifically says they did NOT sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. In fact, it was impossible, because no man had access to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But they died, because they offended the law written on their hearts and conscience, and this is what Paul is explaining.

After Moses there was written law for the Jews. The Gentiles continued to die because they offended the law written on their hearts.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

Original Sin claims that all men sinned "in Adam" as though we all personally sinned when Adam sinned. But the scriptures declare we did NOT sin Adam's sin. It is right there, but goes right over folks heads because they have been conditioned to believe false doctrine.

Romans 5 is CONDITIONAL. Death and judgment pass on men when they SIN just as Adam did, justification unto life passes unto all men when they BELIEVE as Jesus did.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Inspector Javert

Hello IJ,
The "problem" is actually your mis-reading,and speculation on what a human man says

I'm not mis-reading it, Icon....I'm fully aware that I haven't quoted the whole book, and I don't deny that Cheung will invariably speak out of both sides of his mouth in order to essentially deny what he just said here. But, that's not "mis-reading" it.

....then projecting and offering it ,in a way the man did not.Let me pull out where and how you did this, because all of you do this over and over.....maybe if you see it ....you will cease and desist.

You seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with you simply hasn't the reading-comprehension skills which you posses... After all, anyone who disagrees with Icon must be simply stupid right?? I assure you, I understand EXACTLY whay he said, and what Gordon Clark said, and what Sproul Jr. said when they say (and I quote) "GOD CREATED SIN".

Where did he say that God....NEEDED.....anything as you allege?
When you project your own wrong ideas about God....[The God of Calvinism] You go where the writer did not.He did not use that word...so do not insert it for him,He could have wrote that if he wanted to, but he did not.

Fair enough...I will let my first objection go.

The fact that evil exists in a created universe indicates the Creator has a Holy, just, and righteous purpose for it.

Thus rendering it no longer "evil" but, rather Holy, just, and righteous. That's why your Theology is errant.

To vainly speculate that you or others could help God out by suggesting better ways

NOW YOU are supplying words....no one here suggested that or said anything like that....now YOU cease and desist with your false accusations O.K.!:wavey:
Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions,
evil could never have started without God’s active decree,
and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will.
God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil[/I].”([13] Cheung, Vincent. “Problem of Evil,” )

This was answered in my lengthy quotes from both Calvin and Pink...I refer you to it.

Calvin and Pink don't speak for Cheung, Icon........any more than you do. Let Cheung speak for himself. It may surprise you to know that neither Pink nor Calvin nor Cheung all have the same take on their Theology as the other one has.

This classic kind of ungodly rejection should not take place.

Agreed, which is why I reject Calvinism as heretical... it is ungodly and entails horrific notions about God.

No Christian believes

Calvinists believe this way.

or speaks about God in this way

No, they don't usually admit it to either themselves or others granted......but, it IS what they believe. I don't accuse them of "saying" it most of the time, but sometimes they do, actually.

....so what is the problem that causes YOU and your friends to say this all the time.

Because it is what Calvinism entails, necessarilly infers and it is God's will that we face such heresy and call it out for it's error and wrong thinking about God.

The problem is with you ,and your wrong views of the attributes of the biblical God

It is precisely because of the false portrayals of the Biblical God that we reject Calvinism. The God of Calvinism is a disingenuous puppet-master who created sin. That is a horrific accusation about God, and it is admitted to by Calvinists.

Where do you get off saying that HE[God} has no real intention???? to do anything! Or...he has no ACTUAL DESIRE....???

It's so simple, Icon, it shouldn't need explaining.....if EVERYTHING that happens happens only in accordance with God's ACTIVE DECREE (that's a direct quote) Than anything which does NOT occur then, must, by necessity, be because God does not intend for it to occur....such as man's not sinning etc...

If everything which happens is always and only by decree and not "mere otiose permission" (a direct quote) than whenever man sins (for instance) that can only be because God desires for them to, nay has decreed thus, actively and subsequently has no real intention nor desire for man to do right..

If you have these kind of thoughts and all of you seem to be plagued by them

We don't have them.....which is why we reject Calvinism. Because Calvinism (whether you understand it or not) necessarily infers all of these horrific ideas about God. They aren't our thoughts...they were Augustine's and Calvin's and Beza's and Gordon Clark's etc etc....thoughts.

We reject them......hence we reject Calvinism.

...feeding on hate sites...

:laugh:that's just cute...you sound like a liberal complaining about someone reading the National Review.

You are welcome to view as you will...we also are welcome do see it as we do.

Actually, given Calvinism....that isn't strictly-speaking true. Neither you nor I are welcome to do anything whatsoever which is not actively decreed....
Even the most ardent Calvinists can't speak consistently 24-hrs. a day without speaking like an Arminian.

once you go off from the historic confessions of faith...you turn into an avalanche of error.

,
There is no singular "THE HISTORIC" confession Icon. That's simply not good History.

The anthropomorphic language used in scripture is another discussion.

Translation.........God doesn't mean what he says in any verse which disputes the Calvinist view of God.
Anthropomorphic language= God didn't really mean what he said.

Anything that takes place was decreed...or it would not take place,yet the decree is not the cause.....do you understand that?

The decree IS the cause, Icon.....you simply fail to realize that (or admit it to yourself) as most Calvinists do.
Calvinism hides behind the fact that there are proximate and secondary more immediate causes in order to pretend that the Decree (which is the ULTIMATE and sufficient cause) is not the cause....that dog won't hunt.
When I was in the 5th grade, I threw a rock into a window of a neighbor....the rock was the immediate cause of of the glass breaking, not me. Inexplicably...the rock was not actually blamed, nor the arm which threw the rock...but rather the person (yours truly) who willed and intended and decreed that he would tell his arm to throw the rock which hit the window.

Calvinism atttempts to blame the rock, THAT'S what I understand. The decree is indeed the sufficient cause of all evil.

Judas was not told...go betray me.....then Judas said ...no way...i do not want to...but I feel the pressure to betray you as the power of the decree overwhelms me???? Judas wanted the silver...he got what he wanted.then he got the results of his evil choice....

WHY DID HE WANT THE SILVER ICON!!!

If team anti cal jihad

I like your intent with this....but it doesn't really roll-off the tongue enough to be quippy enough. (I think it's the hard "K" in "C"al....) or the hyphenation...but I like where you're going. Perhaps a moniker with more vowels per consonant will spit-fire better. I'll work on it.

Once you are off track...you make this kind of evil accusation about the biblical God.

I am not making an accusation against God Icon....I'm claiming that your belief system does....you are not helping discussion by trying to twist it this way.

Blaming God for mans sin...is what Adam did.....the woman you gave me
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Agreed.......and those are unacceptable conclusions, man was responsible, Adam was responsible for his OWN CHOICE. But, as no such thing exists in Calvinism.......God is, by default blamed which is why I reject Calvinism.

When the Godhead made the Covenant of Redemption.....they did not need your help thinking it out

Duh....where did this come from? From what portion of your mind did this statement seem necessary or relevant?

as shocking as that might be to you.

This is just you resorting to being nasty....you know it is not shocking at all.

That is what it was perfectly planned before the world was;
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

These verses, though nice...are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You do this all the time. You make a statement and then simply post a dearth of off-topic unrelated verses in order to make your argument seem more meaningful and pious.........It fools some people, but, it's never fooled me. You might as well have randomly hurled in some chapter of geneologies for all the relevance these verses have to the discussion.
I know some people fall for this tactic, and regularly hail you for your use of Scripture....but, I don't. I recognize mere verbosity when you use it. Why don't you post verses that are relevant to the discussion at hand instead of this?

I agree that the caricature that you men offer...is very unscriptural.

That "caricature" is simply the good and necessary consequences of Calvinist Theology..........and we reject it.

 

[convicted1]

To Brothers IJ and winman, why was the Law written upon the hearts of those who perished w/o the Law, and when was it written upon their hearts? Was it at conception? Birth? Later in their lives? I ask this in all sincerity.


If it was written upon their hearts pre-birth, then was it added because of Adam's guilt? The Law was added because of transgressions. IOW, it made sin exceedingly sinful.

I ask these questions in all honesty.

 

[Inspector Javert]

How about "Team Armenio-jihad" :thumbs:

Lots of vowels to make it roll better, even the "io" is nice......

Plus, it kinda sounds like "Ahmadinejad" thus invoking images of a horrific Islamo-fascist who dresses like Bea Arthur.

Your Welcome:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How about "Team Armenio-jihad" :thumbs:

Lots of vowels to make it roll better, even the "io" is nice......

Plus, it kinda sounds like "Ahmadinejad" thus invoking images of a horrific Islamo-fascist who dresses like Bea Arthur.

Your Welcome:thumbs:

I'm a dinner jacket:laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Israel are not the only ones who the Bible says are blind to the truth.

Surely I do not have to demonstrate this for you.

We went over this in another discussion, but once again for those following along...

We have talked about the difference between judicial hardening and one growing self-hardened. Many Systematic Theologies have a section explaining this distinction.

Men who 'freely choose' to reject God's revelation will grow calloused or blinded to that revelation over time. That is an example of 'self-hardening.'

Men who have become calloused or blinded over time (self-hardened) might be convinced by a greater revelation of God (sign, wonder, plague, messiah, gospel truth, etc), but that may not serve God's greater redemptive purpose. In these cases God might seal them in their hardened condition by blinding them from these greater revelations (i.e. Pharaoh/Israel).

God blinded Pharaoh in his blindness to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose...the first passover. God blinded Israel in their blindness to accomplish the greatest redemptive purpose...The Passover.