We don't WANT "Free-Will"

[Iconoclast]

Well you are welcome to call it what you want. But your view is neither orthodox nor does it have any basis in fact. Twisting the use of the word "ever" does not make your case. And your view is so absolutely weird and crazy that it falls into the absurd category. I will leave you to yourself.

yes,,,:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

Babies do not commit sin, this is clearly shown by Paul.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Jacob and Esau were very much alive in their mother's womb when this was spoken of them by Paul. Paul said they had done neither good nor evil. They were not sinners.

You can mock all you want, the scriptures do not teach we are born dead in sin.

Babies do commit sins, but since they do not know the ramifications, or consequences of their sins, God doesn't hold that against them, IMHHO.



Let me correct this a little. Toddlers commit sins, and God doesn't place a charge against them. Babies have sin dwelling in their flesh, and this alone, could cause them to die. Death is the consequence of sin, correct? Then what causes a baby, still it it's mother's womb, to die? The sin in the flesh that was passed down from Adam. The only way anyone dies spiritually is by knowingly and willingly sinning. To know to do good, and doing it not, is sin.

 

[Winman]

Babies do commit sins, but since they do not know the ramifications, or consequences of their sins, God doesn't hold that against them, IMHHO.

Let me correct this a little. Toddlers commit sins, and God doesn't place a charge against them. Babies have sin dwelling in their flesh, and this alone, could cause them to die. Death is the consequence of sin, correct? Then what causes a baby, still it it's mother's womb, to die? The sin in the flesh that was passed down from Adam. The only way anyone dies spiritually is by knowingly and willingly sinning. To know to do good, and doing it not, is sin.

I don't know if I agree with this Willis, Adam and Eve had to eat before they sinned, and if you have to eat, then you can physically die.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

What did God mean when he said that if Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life they would live forever? I think the answer might be shown in Revelation.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

It seems the tree of life has some sort of healing power. It is speculation on my part, but if Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life, perhaps they would not have ever grown old. Their body would be constantly regenerated or healed.

It seems that in heaven we will still need to eat on a regular basis, but that we will not age.

I do agree that corruption has spread over the entire universe and therefore babies are subject to death. I don't know if this is sin however, animals have no sin and they die, as well as plants. Even non-living things grow old and corrupt. There will be no such corruption in the new world.

 

[Winman]

Well you are welcome to call it what you want. But your view is neither orthodox nor does it have any basis in fact. Twisting the use of the word "ever" does not make your case. And your view is so absolutely weird and crazy that it falls into the absurd category. I will leave you to yourself.

Again, you insult me without cause. You may disagree with my interpretation, that does not make me "wierd" or "crazy". Where have I insulted you?

In the story of the prodigal son, the elder son NEVER left the father and went out in sin. The father said the elder son was EVER with him. It is our sin that separates us from God.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Note that God said it is our personal sins that separate us from God, not the sin of Adam.

The father indeed confirmed the elder son had never sinned, he was not said to have been lost like his brother, he was not said to have ever been "dead" like his brother, and the father said the elder son was EVER with him.

And I am not concerned with being "orthodox". In Calvin's time it was orthodox to believe in baptismal regeneration. Lots of error has been considered orthodox.

 

[kyredneck]

Again, you insult me without cause.....

Apparently two years of banishment hasn't changed him any.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, lets break your argument down in very simple terms, and don't try to dodge and confound this simple post:

1. Is it GOOD to believe God exists? Yes or No?
2. If no, explain why it is not good to believe that God exists.
3. If yes, then explain how demons (bad trees) do it?

From the point of view of Heaven or earth?

 

[Aaron]

Apparently two years of banishment hasn't changed him any.

Thank God.

 

[psalms109:31]

Adam lacked something before the fall that Jesus did not who did not sin the knowledge of good and evil.

We have the knowledge of good and evil.

With that we all know Paul's famous words


Romans 7:
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[Or my flesh] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

 

[Skandelon]

The brother of the prodigal was a baby that died?

The older brother was a sinner as well. He represents the self righteous Pharisees who had an outward obedience, but whose hearts were wicked.

I'm with Amy on this one... I have no idea what you are talking about, Winman. Sorry. I've been studying theology my entire life and have never heard anything like that...

 

[Skandelon]

The thing is...God never overlooks sin. God judges sin. If He gives them a pass then salvation cannot be by grace alone through faith alone. We now have another avenue of salvation.

Well, yes and no. He overlooked sin for a time according to the passages I referenced. I agree that he will judge sin. Their accounts were credited with righteousness for the same reason ours are. God is gracious enough to accept a mustard seed size of faith. Their revelation may not have been as specific or 'special' as ours, but it was sufficient for their level of response...and thus responsibility.

 

[Skandelon]

From the point of view of Heaven or earth?

I specifically requested you NOT to try and confound this issue. How would any of US have a point of view from Heaven? Scripture certainly doesn't tell us that it is EVER not good to believe God exists, from ANY view point, so I don't see how this question has any relevance whatsoever. It appears you are dodging the matter. Maybe I'm wrong and you can explain why you'd ask such a thing. Here it is again:

Aaron, lets break your argument down in very simple terms, and don't try to dodge and confound this simple post:

1. Is it GOOD to believe God exists? Yes or No?
2. If no, explain why it is not good to believe that God exists.
3. If yes, then explain how demons (bad trees) do it?

 

[Skandelon]

Aaron,

Since you obviously won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to a fellow Calvinist:

Before anything else, we must first specify what kind of good works Total Depravity is talking about regarding what men are incapable of doing so. Of course we all know that a sinner can obey traffic laws, he can give alms to the needy, kiss and say 'I love you' to his mom, donate blood to the Red Cross, etc. These works are good in the sense that they were done to benefit others, and that is good. But the main question we must consider is if "God sees those works as meritorious and acceptable in His sight." The good works we are talking about here, therefore, is not merely what men see and commonly accept as good works, but what God accepts as works pleasing to His sight. After all, Total Depravity never say that sinners are as sinful as they could be, but rather they are completely affected by sin.​

Do you see how he makes the distinction between that which is GOOD (in accordance with the law) and that which is "meritorious," (deserving of divine favor). You have yet to do this very simple thing which has caused this dilemma. You are confounding an otherwise very simple distinction.

 

[Aaron]

[quoted by Scandal]Before anything else, we must first specify what kind of good works Total Depravity is talking about regarding what men are incapable of doing so. Of course we all know that a sinner can obey traffic laws, he can give alms to the needy, kiss and say 'I love you' to his mom, donate blood to the Red Cross, etc. These works are good in the sense that they were done to benefit others, and that is good. But the main question we must consider is if "God sees those works as meritorious and acceptable in His sight." The good works we are talking about here, therefore, is not merely what men see and commonly accept as good works, but what God accepts as works pleasing to His sight. After all, Total Depravity never say that sinners are as sinful as they could be, but rather they are completely affected by sin.

IOW, they are good from the point of view of earth, but evil from the point of view of Heaven.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, lets break your argument down in very simple terms, and don't try to dodge and confound this simple post:

1. Is it GOOD to believe God exists? Yes or No?
2. If no, explain why it is not good to believe that God exists.
3. If yes, then explain how demons (bad trees) do it?

Do you mean from the point of view of Heaven or earth?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Do you mean from the point of view of Heaven or earth?

Unless you are a moral relativist...they are synonymous (at least for the most part)...Certain "Spiritual" or "religious" duties may be subject to clarification...but fundamental notions of "right" and "wrong" and "good" or "bad" are Universally true, understood and objective. There is such a thing as Objective moral "laws"...and not only are they obviously understood by the sinner and Saint alike, but they are Scripturally supported as actual moral truths vis-a-vis Romans 1. Normative human understanding (let alone the obvious testament of Scriture) clearly understands a-la Plantinga...what a "Properly Basic" belief is.

You are now clearly blurring distinctions between right and wrong and good or bad. Godless sinners understand these things as a matter of course. The law of God is as much written upon their hearts as it is in the Scriptures....They are aware of Universal and objective moral truths which condemn them as sinners...and they understand them completely.

It is, in fact... "Good" for a sinner to give alms to the poor...or to treat his own child well. It IS, in fact, "good" for a sinner to give his own child bread when asked...and he knows full well that it is "bad" to give him a snake.....

These are fundamental and obvious and objectively true moral realities (whose source is, in fact, "heaven" as you say) which demand NO modifier.... but are easily and Universally completely understood by the witness of Natural Law.

You are intentionally blurring those distinctions. You are arguing that "Right" is not necessarily "Right" and "Wrong" is not necessarily "Wrong". You are engaged in what the Scriptures call:

1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings

You are re-defining and denying fundamental notions of right and wrong....I have known of ONE and only ONE person...who can consistently speak this way of morality...Peter Singer...and he is VERY consistent. In many ways, what I glean from your posting reminds me of him a lot.

I do not say this to be insulting...I do not intend insult. I have no doubt that you are merely engaged in rhetoric, with no intention of speaking un-Scripturally. But, I cannot help but clearly see the blurring of lines between basic notions of good and evil. I think you are on dangerous ground. I really do. Please simply reconsider your line of argument. :jesus: :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Do you mean from the point of view of Heaven or earth?

Both...answer the questions for both. Tell us how it is not good to believe God exists from either view point. In doing so, you too will finally acknowledge the distinction I've been attempting to draw for the last 20 pages. There is a difference in meritorious (deserving favor) and moral (in accordance with the rules). You are forced to blur the lines because to acknowledge this simple and very common distinction undermines your premise and validates ours.

FAITH IS NOT MERITORIOUS! WE ARE NOT SAVE BY GRACE THROUGH MERIT. And as long as you argue that faith is a work (effectually produced or not) you will contradict this truth. You have continually ignored the question about whether or not you believe men are saved by Grace through works, which is what you must affirm if you believe faith is meritorious.

 

[Aaron]

Unless you are a moral relativist...they are synonymous (at least for the most part)...Certain "Spiritual" or "religious" duties may be subject to clarification...but fundamental notions of "right" and "wrong" and "good" or "bad" are Universally true, understood and objective.

Not at all. Theft and murder are wrong, but on earth one is a greater evil than the other, and merits a more severe punishment according to the law of God.

However, from the point of view of Heaven, theft and murder are irrelevant. What is relevant is the root of the transgression, a corrupt and vile heart. Whatever springs from that heart, whether according to the outward appearance is good or evil, is in essence corrupt and rejected.

 

[Aaron]

FAITH IS NOT MERITORIOUS!

Then it isn't good, because to be good is to have intrinsic worth. Your distinctions, and those by the well-meaning Calvinists you quote are illusory.

It seems you've answered your own question.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Not at all. Theft and murder are wrong, but on earth one is a greater evil than the other, and merits a more severe punishment according to the law of God.

Yes.

However, from the point of view of Heaven, theft and murder are irrelevant.

Only as far as "Salvation" is merited...but they are clearly not morally irrelevant....Even in "heaven's" Point of view...certain "Earthly" crimes warranted certain (non-capital) punishments...and other one's did. They reflected a pattern of "Heavenly" pre-eminnence...God pre-scribed to Israel certain "laws" to be observed on Earth (as matters of legal recourse) and they DID distinguish between certain "levels" of right and wrong....and they contained appropriate punishments...We do not (on Earth) merely "conjure-up" random recourses for certain crimes without a basic appeal to Universal morality.

What is relevant is the root of the transgression, a corrupt and vile heart. Whatever springs from that heart, whether according to the outward appearance is good or evil, is in essence corrupt and rejected.

Nothing....which Springs from an un-regenerate heart is Salvifically acceptable, or worthy of Salvific "merit"...but it does not therefore render it Universally immaterial and without distinction. God has always demanded that man rely upon HIM...and HIM alone for grace...that is to be understood with reference to Salvific merit...But one cannot then claim that Cain's sacrifice (for instance) was "bad"...no...it was "good"...it was not "Salvifically" merited, but it was a good thing.

Had he offered it as a non-prescribed "free-will" act of spontaneous worship...IT would have been accepted!!!!

What God wanted was for Cain to NOT be meritoriously worthy with respect to his own "works"....Cain needed to offer (and probably be forced to trade with Abel, which would really irk him) a substitutionary sacrifice of blood to remit for sin....but it wasn't a "sin" for him to work hard and to till soil and to feed his family of his own "sweat". That was a "good" thing....What wasn't "good", was to think it should merit Atonement....He would have to humble himself for that!!!!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

to be good is to have intrinsic worth.

To be "good" is to be "good"...to posses "intrinsic worth" is to be made in the image of God. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Man posseses intrinsic "worth"....be he sinner or Saint. Man has "Worth" (as God's image-bearer) period. Otherwise...there is no argument against abortion.