• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The conflicted Calvinist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Winman

Active Member
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth". This speaks about the deeds of man. His deeds were wicked and they prevailed during Noah's time.

Nevertheless, you are adding into scripture what is not there, it does not say men are compelled to sin.

Romans 3:10-18 is a treatise on the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Romans 3:13 says, "Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues that keep deceiving". This is a continual action in the Greek. They forever continue deceiving. They deceive again, and again, and again; ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. Only a person who is compelled to sin because of their wicked nature can continue to sin like this; and such is the condition of each and every unbeliever.

Same here, you are reading into scripture. If I made the statement, "my neighbors NEVER go to church, NO, NOT ONE" would you understand that to mean they were unable to go to church? NO, not even YOU would believe that, yet you have allowed Calvinist teaching to cause you to read into scripture what it does not say. It is simply telling you the sinfulness of all men, but it is not saying men are unable to do right. Think about that awhile.

You missed the point. I quoted Romans 6:6 to point out that at one time we were slaves to sin. At that time, prior to being converted, we were slaves to sin. A slave is the property of another, and bound to do the will of the one he serves. Prior to being freed from sin we were in bondage to it. Sin was out master. We were under compulsion to it.

A slave does not necessarily have to obey his master. A slave can disobey, a slave can run away. But he belongs to his master and when he is captured he is returned. Likewise, once you sin you are sold to sin and belong to it. You cannot escape, no matter what you do, you are BOUND under the penalty of death. This is what the scriptures mean when they say we are servants to sin, it does not mean we HAVE to sin as you and others falsely teach. When a sinner tells the truth, he is not sinning. That good work will not allow him to earn salvation, he is still bound to death, but it is not a sin.

Ephesians 2:1-3 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Not only were we dead to sin, but we walked in that "deadness" (according to the course of this world). We did so willingly, yes; but we were compelled to do so because of our nature. Our nature did not possess the ability to anything else other than to sin.

Yes, we certainly did sin before we were saved, and we still sin after we are saved. But now we are dead to sin, we do not belong to it anymore, like the wife who had been married, but now her husband is dead. We are now married to Christ and under grace. But we still sin.

We are NEVER compelled to sin. If you are honest you will admit that even before you were saved, sin was a choice. You did not HAVE to lie or steal, you chose to do so. I have never been compelled to sin in my life, not once.

I agree with your statement, but you eliminate sin nature aspect.

The Bible says that we are slaves to sin, not by action only, but also through the nature we are born with due to the sin of Adam (Romans 5:12). If man is born without a sin nature then Christ died in vain.

Misinterpretation of scripture again. Romans 5:12 says DEATH passed on all men, not SIN. Gigantic difference. You are teaching something the scriptures do not say.

We are.

You are cherry-picking, using passages to support your presuppositions while ignoring the larger context. It is understandable why you continually do this, because it undermines your position.

First of all, I do not smoke, and I drink alcohol in moderation. The Bible say that drunkenness is a sin, not imbibing. Smoking may not be wise or healthy, but neither is eating copious amounts of fat. You need to work on your illustrations.

No man is born with a cigarette in his mouth or a bottle of whiskey in his hand. A man chooses to sin when he is not addicted and becomes addicted.

A person may become addicted to a specific sin by practicing it; but he is under compulsion to sin (general) by his very nature as explained earlier.

No he's not. No one forced you to drink.

Context:

How can the "good work" of returning a lost wallet be considered by Isaiah to be akin to a filthy garment? Because of being in a state of sin.

No garment starts out as a filthy rag. No leaf starts out brown and dead. You overlook the obvious.

You are prolific in making this accusation against anyone who has the audacity to stand up to your false teaching. You are tone deaf.

I am a musician who happens to have an excellent ear.

You are truly a piece of work. I understand the Old Testament context. So, why did Paul use the Jeremiah passage to speak about God's sovereign purpose? Go chew on that one for a while.


Tone deaf! I never said God caused Judas to sin.
If you knew Jeremiah you would know Paul is not saying God picks one person to salvation and another to damnation unconditionally in Romans 9 as Calvinism falsely teaches.

It is you that has been brain-washed by false teaching. You read into scripture what is not there constantly. You have shown that over and over in this very post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Winman,

A slave does not necessarily have to obey his master. A slave can disobey, a slave can run away.

the word used was a willing bondslave...doulas.... they willingly serve. Herald took time and schooled you on your error, and yet you rush headlong back into error. not really a surprise...
 

Herald

New Member
Winman,

I was never under the illusion you were going to repent of your serious error. I have taken the time to go point by point with you; but there is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to invest in a time sink. Hopefully the issues discussed, and the answers provided, will be to the profit of the readers.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Winman,

I was never under the illusion you were going to repent of your serious error. I have taken the time to go point by point with you; but there is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to invest in a time sink. Hopefully the issues discussed, and the answers provided, will be to the profit of the readers.

you have both my sincere appreciation & my condolences.
 

Thomas Helwys

New Member
In a lot of the Arminian posts, there seems to be a major misunderstanding about the power of an individual to make a choice. There are the choices we make in everyday life. Then there is the choice (that does not exist) for an unsaved person to turn to the Lord on their own efforts when they so deem.

The games played in these posts are equating the two types of choice. For example, one poster used the Conneticut shooter as an example. This person had the power to choose to shoot or not to shoot. If he had chosen not to shoot, it would not have been because the Holy Spirit convicted him because of his faith in Jesus Christ. It would have been for some self serving motive. Had the shooter chosen not to shoot, he would have still been hopelessly lost in sin, headed to hell. The choice he made was a daily living choice, like we all make. It has nothing to do with the Calvin-free will debate. The issue in this debate is when we are regenerated and Who does the choosing.

So, what Mr. and Mrs. Ariminian do is use examples of daily living choices to advance their flawed position on God's sovereignty, when in fact, it has nothing to do with the subject. We choose to go or not go to the grocery. We either go to work or we do not. These choices do not require regeneration. Deciding if your are going to get a Big Mac or a value menu burger does not require regeneration.

Salvation and faith in Jesus Christ is another matter. He chose us.

Ahh, but the position you are stating that Arminins believe is not what Arminians believe. And for example of that, I will simply point you to John Wesley and prevenient grace.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
This is not what Calvinists believe or teach. God allows sin, but does not cause it.

Depends on the "Calvinist" you are talking to...

The WCF, a renowned and widely accepted confession of those holding to the Reformed doctrine, does speak of God ordaining whatsoever comes to pass. And many, even here on this board, deny the idea of bare permission ("God allows") regarding sin.

However, that said, I will concede that some Calvinists do not take it this far and do, as you say, merely teach that God only allows sin. This presents other issues for the Calvinistic system, which we can discuss in detail if you wish.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Look back at Pharaoh during the time of Moses. It can be argued that Pharaoh's crimes against the people of Israel were just as, if not more, heinous than the Newtown tragedy. But what of God's hand in all of that? God did not cause Pharaoh to persecute Israel, nor from killing all the firstborn of Israel. What God did was to remove His restraining hand and allow Pharaoh sway. But why? Well, we have the benefit of the record of history as contained in Exodus and Romans. Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So, the Bible tell us the reason why God allowed Pharaoh to come to power and persecute Israel, "that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."

So, what about the Newtown tragedy? We probably cannot offer an opinion on that right now, except to say that God allows all things to happen for His glory. What if the result of Newtown is that the certain people come to believe the Gospel? Imagine all the human interaction that has occurred and will occur because of that horrible shooting. People that would have never met have now met or will meet in the future. In glory we may learn of marvelous tales of how a person came to faith in Christ through a tragic event. Truly, Joseph spoke well when he said in Genesis 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."
I can't speak for all non-Calvinistic Baptist, obviously, but I find no disagreement with what you have said here. :thumbs:

The issue that I'm raising has to do with contra-causal freedom and the ability of free moral agents to CHOOSE between available options...and be held RESPONSIBLE (response-able) for those choices.

If God merely allowed an agent to act freely, then you are affirming contra-causual freewill, something many Calvinists deny.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
With the exception of Herald, who appears to be denying determinism, no Calvinist here has addressed the points raised by the OP:

"Calvinists are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done or believed otherwise. In other words, they are actively rebuking God's ordained and preset will for your life, all the while believing that their own rebuke is likewise God's ordained and preset will. So, according to their circular deterministic worldview (where God is the only actual agent/actor/chooser in existence) they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them."
 

Herald

New Member
The WCF, a renowned and widely accepted confession of those holding to the Reformed doctrine, does speak of God ordaining whatsoever comes to pass.

Quote the WCF accurately:

3.1 God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

It goes on, in disputation of the charge that He ordains only that which He knows according to foreknowledge:

3.2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is nearly identical:

3.1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

3.2. Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Quote the WCF accurately:3.1 God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Yes, and? How did I quote that inaccurately? Just as the OP stated, Calvinists appeal to 'second causes' to attempt to explain away the problems of their deterministic circularity, but this says exactly what I argued. God determines/causes it ('unchangeably ordains it').

Tell me, how would you explain the difference in 'authoring' something and 'unchangeably ordaining it to come to pass'? What is the difference exactly? Be specific.



It goes on, in disputation of the charge that He ordains only that which He knows according to foreknowledge:

3.2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
Exactly, which is denying the idea of mere "allowing" as you appeared to be supporting. God, according to this view, doesn't merely foreknow and allow evil, He ordains/determines it.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith is nearly identical:
Thank you for validating my point.
 

Herald

New Member
With the exception of Herald, who appears to be denying determinism...

As I already said to webdog, it depends on how you define determinism. Does God bring all things to pass? Yes. By doing so is He the author of sin, or suffer violence to the will of the individual? No. If you think about it both the Arminian and the Calvinist have the same difficulty in providing an answer to this dilemma. Individuals like Winman do not have a problem with it, because He is an Open Theist and a full Pelagian. But for the rest of us we come to the end of ourselves when trying to understand God's will of decree, and its relation to evil (sin). This is where systematic theology is helpful. We understand God through His nature, as it is revealed in the whole counsel of God. We have strong statements such as James' insistence that God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one (Jas. 1:13). So, the difficulty enters in when we know that God cannot sin; does not cause anyone else to sin; yet still uses sin to accomplish His purpose (i.e. Pharaoh and Judas). The belief that God does not cause anyone to sin is tautological in nature.
 

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
No. Look at it from God's perspective. He knew Judas' sinful choices, inasmuch as He is God and knows the end from the beginning. God did not choose Judas for his role based on what future choice he would make. He already knew the choice. It had already been made. As far as we are concerned, we can only see those things that are revealed to us as they occur. The rest we must accept by faith.

Uh, what you just described is more along the lines of foreknowledge and Arminianism then it is absolute sovereignty and Calvinism.

My point is that if Judas had no choice, then God IS the author of sin. If I can only "choose" to do sinful things, if repentance is never an option, if grace through faith is only something other people can experience - then how is God in some dualistic way, not evil?
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
As I already said to webdog, it depends on how you define determinism. Does God bring all things to pass? Yes. By doing so is He the author of sin, or suffer violence to the will of the individual? No. If you think about it both the Arminian and the Calvinist have the same difficulty in providing an answer to this dilemma. Individuals like Winman do not have a problem with it, because He is an Open Theist and a full Pelagian. But for the rest of us we come to the end of ourselves when trying to understand God's will of decree, and its relation to evil (sin). This is where systematic theology is helpful. We understand God through His nature, as it is revealed in the whole counsel of God. We have strong statements such as James' insistence that God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one (Jas. 1:13). So, the difficulty enters in when we know that God cannot sin; does not cause anyone else to sin; yet still uses sin to accomplish His purpose (i.e. Pharaoh and Judas). The belief that God does not cause anyone to sin is tautological in nature.


Herald, it is not right to refer to Winman as an Open Theist or Pelagian. Unless of course he consents to those titles. I don't know his position on OT, but he is definitely not Pelagian, at least not according to any definition of Pelagianism I have ever come across.
 

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Uh, what you just described is more along the lines of foreknowledge and Arminianism then it is absolute sovereignty and Calvinism.

My point is that if Judas had no choice, then God IS the author of sin. If I can only "choose" to do sinful things, if repentance is never an option, if grace through faith is only something other people can experience - then how is God in some dualistic way, not evil?

Ah, the crux of the matter. And people on another thread wonder how Calvinism can possibly be said to have Gnostic influence.
 

Herald

New Member
Herald, it is not right to refer to Winman as an Open Theist or Pelagian. Unless of course he consents to those titles. I don't know his position on OT, but he is definitely not Pelagian, at least not according to any definition of Pelagianism I have ever come across.

He is and I will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top