The Great Moral Problem of How an Inherently Corrupt Nature Originates in each CHILD...

[MB]

Yeah, the sin attributed to the soul is what God Has to first Convict a human being of.

If that has Taken Place and they are untaught, oblivious, ignorant, etc., to Giving God The Glory in Saving their soul, and Have Had God Grant them Conviction, Repentance, and Faith by Quickening their dead, sin-cursed soul, then those Operations of The Holy Spirit, which are Testified by thousands of Scriptures, are simply not Testified by them in Loving Worship of their Savior.

They are 'religious' Bible Deniers, because they worship the fear of Satan, even if they are Saved, if that is possible for them to be.

Dunno.

Thanks for your 'thoughts', though, for some reason.

Now the first sentence of this is about conviction but your explanation of it is lacking in truth. Conviction can bring one to repentance but faith cometh by hearing. What you claim about faith is false. You see your post is proof of what I have said Calvinism really is. It's a little bit of scripture mixed with fairy tales which corrupts all of it. Some call it half truths. I call it a false doctrine.
MB

 

[InTheLight]

It is not against The Board rules to profess that the well need not a physician.

How do people change their "inherently corrupt nature?"

 

[InTheLight]

Where did he question anyone's salvation?

The subject matter of the thread is the "inherently corrupt nature" which "originates within the child". This is the very definition of Total Depravity.

The OP clearly states this here:
REPENT of your inherently corrupt nature, as Discribed by God's Bible Doctrine of Total Depravity

then he immediately says,
Turn from you sins by practice and habit, and your blasphemous denial and hatred of your Creator,

So we are to acknowledge that the doctrine of Total Depravity is in the Bible and if we deny that assertion we hate the Creator.

Either the OP is saying this or he is a poor writer, unable to communicate what he is trying to say.

 

[JonC]

Please be careful not to discuss edits and deletions made by the staff on the open forum.

To settle the issue, @Iconoclast made a complaint that wording "repent and believe the gospel" was close to questioning another's salvation, requesting censorship. The post (two posts, the post and quoted post) was deleted because @Iconoclast complained that the language was inappropriate and violated the BaptistBoard rules by challenging the salvation of another person.

For the record - I believe that we continually need to repent and believe the gospel. But I agree with @Iconoclast that the context in which the statements were made were very close to (if not actually) questioning whether or not the other actually believed the gospel (was saved). So the post was deleted.

We do not need to pretend the post never existed (@Revmitchell correctly identified it has been deleted, I do not know why @Iconoclast does not recall reading the post as he requested its censorship), but at the same time we do not need to make it a greater issue. Perhaps Allen did not mean it in the way it was taken (I would not have). But this only goes to show we have to word our posts carefully as they are not always taken as we intend them to be received.

 

[1689Dave]

How can the existence of God be harmonized with the existence of evil?

This is the question of the ages no doubt.

In early Christian times Lactantius reports its prevalence. "If God is good and wants to eliminate sin, but cannot, he is not omnipotent; but if God is omnipotent and can eliminate sin, but does not, he is not good. God cannot be both omnipotent and good."

From my own observations, Free Will does not solve the problem since God's omniscience would lock everything including evil choices into the foreseen path including all necessary chain reactions. So in this sense man would be the author of evil but God the cause by creating it.

Plus, God is eternally omniscient and cannot learn from anything he did not cause. If he were to learn from observing, he is not eternally omniscient.

 

[MB]

Yeah, maybe so.

Is that correct?

I have the copy of it and sent it to Jon C. who also denied it to be reinstated, as it was written.

The cool thing was that I gave a "Calvinist" soul credit to all souls.

In other words, what Calvin 'apparently' attributes to the soul, as God's Bible Doctrine of Total Depravity, I attributed to all souls.

That sin must be Convicted and Granted Repentance and Faith or they will go to Hell as a Calvistist.

Is that better?

A Calvinist soul does not exist.. Because we all are made by God. Calvinist souls are not made but deceived
MB

 

[JonC]

Yeah, maybe so.

Is that correct?

I have the copy of it and sent it to Jon C. who also denied it to be reinstated, as it was written.

The cool thing was that I gave a "Calvinist" soul credit to all souls.

In other words, what Calvin 'apparently' attributes to the soul, as God's Bible Doctrine of Total Depravity, I attributed to all souls.

That sin must be Convicted and Granted Repentance and Faith or they will go to Hell as a Calvistist.

Is that better?

Allen,

As is often the case (and something I have experienced several times) what is posted is not always received in like manner.

A fellow Calvinist (Iconoclast) also precieved the language (paticularly urging repentance and belief) to be questioning the salvation of others and asked for censorship.

I hope you understand the issue is often more with how something is received than with the intent in its presentation.

We (the staff) try to maintain the rules of the forum absent our personal beliefs (I doubt we fully agree with each other doctrinally).

I say this to try and not discourage you from expressing your positions while explaining why posts are removed even when the intent is benign.

In Christ,

JonC

 

[InTheLight]

How can the existence of God be harmonized with the existence of evil?

Well, it's not the subject matter of this thread. So quit derailing it.

 

[percho]

Just some thoughts I have had.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.Gal 4:4,5


Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me. Ps 51:5 NKIV

Why was his conception, sin? Why is the bringing forth listed before the conception, or does it matter?

Another question. Would Jesus have been brought forth, holy, had his mother not been, a virgin, when bringing him forth?

and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[fn] And he called His name JESUS. Matt 1:25 NKJV

Would he have been called JESUS?

For how long had the bringing forth in iniquity, having been conceived in sin applied?

And Man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man with Jehovah. Gen 3:1 Darby

 

[Iconoclast]

The subject matter of the thread is the "inherently corrupt nature" which "originates within the child". This is the very definition of Total Depravity.

The OP clearly states this here:
REPENT of your inherently corrupt nature, as Discribed by God's Bible Doctrine of Total Depravity

then he immediately says,
Turn from you sins by practice and habit, and your blasphemous denial and hatred of your Creator,

So we are to acknowledge that the doctrine of Total Depravity is in the Bible and if we deny that assertion we hate the Creator.

Either the OP is saying this or he is a poor writer, unable to communicate what he is trying to say.

Hello ITL,

I am not sure of all of what AG is posting.
Some of it seems clear.other portions are harder to follow.
He could mean this or that....I just support his right to express himself and clarify what he is saying.
I might agree.
I might agree in part.
I might disagree with portions of it.
His ideas do not harm anyone.

 

[percho]

I have a question and trust me it is relative to the OP. I also believe it is relative to the Calvinism & Arminianism Debate

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1 At that very moment in time was the following applicable?

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning 1 part of 1 John 3:8

At that moment in time did God have a plan? 1 Peter 1:18-20? Was at that moment in time the Son of God going to be manifested as a Man? Last part of 1 John 3:8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

At that moment in time would the destruction of the devil and his works come about through, redemption?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What was God going to do?

 

[percho]

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; Rom 8:20

Why did God subject the creation to futility? Because of the sin of the devil or because of the sin of man? What is the, in hope?
Is it not redemption? Foreordained before the foundation of the world?

 

[InTheLight]

Hello ITL,

I am not sure of all of what AG is posting.

Sure sounds like he's saying if you don't believe in Total Depravity you hate God and deny the Creator.
I've asked him twice to clarify and nothing is forthcoming.

His ideas do not harm anyone.

Calling professing Christians "God haters" most certainly does harm people. Not me personally, I'm confident in my salvation, but spectators viewing threads like this must wonder about the discord that is sown on a Christian forum over a theological concept.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sure sounds like he's saying if you don't believe in Total Depravity you hate God and deny the Creator.
I've asked him twice to clarify and nothing is forthcoming.



Calling professing Christians "God haters" most certainly does harm people. Not me personally, I'm confident in my salvation, but spectators viewing threads like this must wonder about the discord that is sown on a Christian forum over a theological concept.

I understand him saying to deny the scriptural teaching of the sinfulness of mankind which goes all through scripture is to hate the God who declared it so.
For example, I have heard people say...I would never worship a God who casts people into hell.
That is to hate the biblical God.
A holy God is going to cast multitudes into second death.

 

[InTheLight]

I understand him saying to deny the scriptural teaching of the sinfulness of mankind which goes all through scripture is to hate the God who declared it so.

Please name one person in this thread or on BB that denies the sinfulness of mankind. One.

 

[Iconoclast]

Please name one person in this thread or on BB that denies the sinfulness of mankind. One.

People will give a general nod to the idea of sin.
That being said,when put under a theological microscope many fall away from the intense damage sin has done to mankind spiritually, especially in regards to the spiritually dead condition of all mankind apart from Christ.
That is what I think AG is highlighting in his posts

 

[loDebar]

Nature is not corrupt, it is cursed. The sin is of the heart, or souls ,of man
Sin is not shared nor inherited , it is individual.

 

[Revmitchell]

We do more than just give it a nod we just do not hold to total depravity. We believe we are spiritually dead like the prodigal but not like Lazarus. The intentional mis characterizations intended to demonize our positions lacks integrity

 

[InTheLight]

People will give a general nod to the idea of sin.
That being said,when put under a theological microscope many fall away from the intense damage sin has done to mankind spiritually, especially in regards to the spiritually dead condition of all mankind apart from Christ.
That is what I think AG is highlighting in his posts

Wrong.

Here is the topic of the thread, direct from the first sentence in the OP:

"... Scripture casts light on the great moral problem of how an inherently corrupt nature originates in each child from the beginning of its existence without its Creator being the Author of sin.

It seems to me he is saying that there is an inherently corrupt sin nature baked into each human from conception and if you deny that doctrine you are denying the Creator and you hate God.

 

[JonC]

BB,

I addressed the post a member made that proved false by providing a screen shot of his request that the post in question be censored.

I wrestled with the decision because I didn’t want to add to the member’s warning points (he has already been banned several times for inappropriate behavior). But in hindsight my posting of his report could damage the reporting process. While I abhor dishonesty I also do not want people to be hesitant to report what they believe is a genuine violation of BB policy.

You have my apology for posting the report of another member. The post has been deleted and the member warned about false accusations.