Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God's decree does not produce your inclination; but the decree renders your inclination certain.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
You cannot tell the difference between the elect and the non-elect. Having to define 'we' is pointless. You're the only one that needs to do so and when you do it makes no practical difference.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Again, you need to r-e-a-d. There are Calvinists who are annihilationists, and OVTs who believe in eternal torment. I'm one of them. The point is that OVT embraces God as eternally just.
Of course this answer only belies the fact that you screwed up, but, as usual, fail to own up to it.
I've never read Enyart's books. I'm winding up getting my M. Div. I've studied theology extensively. I even have Reymond's systematic theology, and I've read it.
Maybe you should get the facts before you start making accusations.
Egalitarianism? Wow.. You're seriously desperate, now, aren't you... I've never even given a hint of egalitarianism, and you're accusing me of it?
If those are your answers, then I suggest you stop posting. You're making Calvinism look bad.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Ever notice that when Mr. Religion is confronted with clear Scriptural evidence, that he quickly goes on to change the topic?
Notice here Mr. Religion has his head handed to him with Scriptural evidence that refutes his every point, and yet here he completely ignores it, and goes on to falsely accuse OVT here.
I think I'll go with the Scriptural theology, rather than the one who runs from it.
Muz
Notice here Mr. Religion has his head handed to him with Scriptural evidence that refutes his every point, and yet here he completely ignores it, and goes on to falsely accuse OVT here.
I think I'll go with the Scriptural theology, rather than the one who runs from it.
Muz
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Not according to the WCF!
WCF ch III "I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;"
I think my inclinations fall under "whatsoever comes to pass".
If, as you say, God did not decree my inclinations then who or what caused them?
themuzicman
Well-known member
That you've confirmed that you're having your head handed to you by the OVTs, yes.
Muz
You are completely stupid E4E! I have no idea why I even try to have a reasoned conversation with you.
No one every suggested that we should make sin acceptable you fat headed dork!
SO WHAT?
If the meaning behind our doing so is not consistent with your unnecessarily narrow meaning of the term then we are not saying something that is in conflict with your theology but rather only something that SOUNDS like it is in conflict with it. Do you understand the difference? I really don't think your do!
And each and every time you hear someone say this you will have been given an opportunity to teach rather than to beat someone over the head for having used a particular word incorrectly.
The most appalling?
Would you say then that to believe that you've sinned and disappointed God was wrong/evil?
Most people think that appallingly evil acts are sins, E4E! Imagine that! :noway:
And if that is what they are referring too when they use the word "sin", then they are saying the exact same thing that you are! It's the same EXACT thing! Words convey concepts E4E. Language is not a chemical equation or a mathematical formula. Virtually every word in existence has a whole range of meanings and you don't get to decide which meanings are valid and which are not. You have to figure out what is meant by what is being said and it isn't usually so cut and dried as you'd like for it to be.
Well that's because it isn't accurate! Not if you are blinding yourself to what that person thinks is meant by the word 'sinner'! Your own message gets turned upside down because you refuse to communicate with people and would rather beat them over the head with some favored definition that you refuse to articulate in the first place!
If you had been paying attention you would have seen me say this exact thing dozens of times without worrying about whether someone has incorrectly used the word "sin" or "sinner". I listen for the meaning they are conveying, not the specific words they use because I understand that in our society the word 'sin' has taken on a meaning that the Bible never intended. The difference between you and me is that I don't shut my eyes to the reality in which I find myself. The fact is that the church has almost completely lost the gospel of grace. They don't know what it is, they don't know who taught it, they don't know how to apply it to their lives. They put unbelievers under grace, and place themselves and other believers under the law and think that this is what Jesus taught us to do! It's not even completely backward; its just plain incorrect! In short, there are a whole lot more important issues than worrying about beating someone up over the use of the word 'sin' in reference to actions they performed that they should not have.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
Yeper!
elected4ever
New member
Well I have been called worse so I will just let this name calling slid.
Clete, as lone your view of sin is skewed there is no way you will understand what I am saying. Don't you understand that in order to sin you have to be a sinner. To be a sinner you have to be of the flesh and we are not of the flesh if we have been born of the Spirit of God. The Apostle Paul said that we are not of the flesh but of the Spirit. If we have not the spirit then we are not of God. If we are of the spirit then we have been made the righteousness of God. If we fail to realize this and continue to hold ourselves guilty of the deeds of the fallen nature of man we have not been set free from sin. We are dead to sin and the flesh and have been set free from the law of sin and death and the death will have no more power over us.
So what indeed
Clete, The word says, "as a person thinketh in his heart so is he." A hypochondriac will go to a doctor and exhibit the symptoms of the ailment that he thinks he has though he is perfectly healthy. Why? because the body will obey the lie that the mind is telling him and exhibit the symptoms as believed in the mind. This is mental illness. It does not matter if the illness exist or not. The body will act in accordance with the belief.
If you and I believe that we are still inflicted with the disease of sin even after we have been curred from that disease by the great physician Jesus Christ we will continue to exhibit the symptoms of sin, which are called sins in our lives and this will be viewed as normal by us and inescapable. It is not that we have not been cured but refuse to believe that we have been curred. In short we teach each other to do the deeds (sins) consistent with the disease (sin) that that we no loner have. So what indeed. What a cavalier attitude.:madmad:
I hope my skill set is improving. I am not a trained orator. I have to learn on the fly, so to speak.
I thought that because I could not be consistent in not sinning that I was an embarrisment as a representative of the Kingdom of God on earth and I wonted to go home and ask God to take me home. At least to me, I believed I had not done a very good job because of the sin I thought I had in my life.
That is what I thought at the time. Little , big, appalling or not. All acts that were wrong were sins to me because Jesus was perfect and the demands of scripture is perfect righteousness and because I lived life in the flesh and in the flesh I could not be what was expected then I was really ether lost are was saved and an embarrisment. Ether way I wonted to die. The doctrine of OSAS was of little value to me, and words of consolation could not stop the pit of remorse that had trapped me. In short I just plane ran out of excuses for my conduct and had to face what I believed was true about my life whether real or imagined. It was real enough to me at the time.
Oh, and the wordsmithing that you suggest I have tried before and that doesn't work ether. It is just another form of excuse making.
Clete, do you think that I have not been where others on this board are today? let me assure you that i have been there done that. Not giving credibility to a particular point of view is not for the like of understanding but a refusal to justify a false position. It is not false to the one who believes it but it is to me. It matters little to me if a person is Calvinist, OV, Arminian or RC. Giving credibility to error is wrong. Even when they are my own.
Yea, I know what you mean but I have a hard time accepting modern day thought when words that are meant to convey one thing are used to convey another. Your communication skills may be better than mine so that may not bother you as much. it really bothers me. Just look at what has happened to our country and to the churches as a result of redefining words from there original intent. New meanings convey a false teaching.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Was Adam a sinner before he sinned?
Muz
Muz
elected4ever
New member
No, but nether was he righteous. He was innocent of sin. There was nothing to make him a sinner until he choose to become one by violating the commandment of God.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Lucifer and Adam sinned from a position of innocence. The will is the seat of moral choice, not a causative nature back of the will. A nature is formed as one makes wrong moral choices.
Likewise, Augustinian 'original sin' is not necessary to explain why all men sin and are condemned sinners. Romans 1-3 says we are condemned because we suppress truth, make wicked choices, reject God, worship idols, practice immorality, etc. These are volitional, not genetic.
We are sinners because we sin. We do not sin because we are conceived through intercourse by our parents.
Physical depravity is inherited universally after the Fall. We all die, even redeemed believers and the sinless Savior.
Moral depravity is volitional. This is why we are culpable, accountable, responsible before a holy God. Our physical depravity leads to a propensity to sin and live in the flesh vs spirit, but ultimately our will and mind leads to yielding to this propensity. If there was a causative nature, we would not be held morally responsible for something we could not help. Adam is responsible for his sin (that did have consequences to the human race) and we are responsible for our sin. Sin involves mental and moral capacity which is lacking in those born a 'vegetable' or in a newborn.
Likewise, Augustinian 'original sin' is not necessary to explain why all men sin and are condemned sinners. Romans 1-3 says we are condemned because we suppress truth, make wicked choices, reject God, worship idols, practice immorality, etc. These are volitional, not genetic.
We are sinners because we sin. We do not sin because we are conceived through intercourse by our parents.
Physical depravity is inherited universally after the Fall. We all die, even redeemed believers and the sinless Savior.
Moral depravity is volitional. This is why we are culpable, accountable, responsible before a holy God. Our physical depravity leads to a propensity to sin and live in the flesh vs spirit, but ultimately our will and mind leads to yielding to this propensity. If there was a causative nature, we would not be held morally responsible for something we could not help. Adam is responsible for his sin (that did have consequences to the human race) and we are responsible for our sin. Sin involves mental and moral capacity which is lacking in those born a 'vegetable' or in a newborn.
elected4ever
New member
That does seem like a contradiction doesn't it. Well it isn't. There is no indication that Adam did everything right before he eat the fruit. There was no commandment for Adam to violate before God told Adam not to eat of the fruit. No opportunity existed for Adam to become a sinner so Adam was not a sinner. When Adam choose to become a sinner by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, morality, then Adam became aware of good and evil. and acted on the bases of that knowledge by hiding. Adam lost his innocents not his physical life. Adam also lost his fellowship with God and as judgment God separated Adam from Himself. This separation was immediate and permanent. All men are born into this lose of innocents and separation and is against the decreed will of God for man. It is what man has chosen for himself. This separation is called death and all men are born into this death. All men are sinners because all men are born into the results of Adams act, Not that all men do the same as Adam but all men do according to his nature. That nature is called the sin nature and all acts committed out of this nature are acts of sin. So all men are sinners like Adam.
themuzicman
Well-known member
elected4ever
New member
See the above answer.
Lucifer was not created as Satan, but became Satan.
Adam was not created a sinner, but became a sinner through disobedience.
We are not born sinners, but become sinners as we sin. We are born with affects from the Fall, but not with the guilt of Adam's choices that we had nothing to do with. We are responsible for our own following in Adam's footsteps and cannot blame God, Adam, our parents, or Satan. We all like sheep have gone astray by our own selfish rebellion.
Adam was not created a sinner, but became a sinner through disobedience.
We are not born sinners, but become sinners as we sin. We are born with affects from the Fall, but not with the guilt of Adam's choices that we had nothing to do with. We are responsible for our own following in Adam's footsteps and cannot blame God, Adam, our parents, or Satan. We all like sheep have gone astray by our own selfish rebellion.
Last edited:
themuzicman
Well-known member
This?
That didn't entirely answer the question, but close enough, I guess, if you don't want to by clearer.
Nevertheless, the obvious contradiction remains:
1) One must be a sinner to sin (E4E's assumption)
2) Adam was not a sinner
3) Therefore, Adam couldn't sin.
However, Adam did. Therefore, the assumption must be false.
Muz
- Status