Big Picture

[Guest]

God does not actively "prevent" the reprobate from coming to faith; He doesn't need to. Apart from the active operation of the Holy Spirit to change us, we love our sin and hate God, and would never come to Him.

Cheers,
Bob

Who made man? Why does man hate God? Was Adam in this "love our sin and hate God" mode?

[Guest]

Who made man? Why does man hate God? Was Adam in this "love our sin and hate God" mode?

Good point Sean.

I also would like to add that how can an innocent baby hate God.
I guess Gen. 1:26 does not mean anything to them because we were created according to God's image. Every babies were created according to his image which means that all of us were saved at one time.

Gen.1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

How can an innocent baby have a reprobate mind?

Well they don't!!!!

[Guest]

Who made man? Why does man hate God? Was Adam in this "love our sin and hate God" mode?

Hi Sean,

Well, these are kind of Christianity 101, so I'm not sure what you're driving at unless you want to deny original sin, in which case I'll leave you to it.

To the extent that Adam or anyone else loved God, it was due to the influence of His grace.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

In response to Homer, Paul T wrote "I believe this is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position. Perhaps you’ve heard the term, “but there for the grace of God go I...”?"

Didn't I essentially say this to Homer and explained a more precise understanding of the reformed view?

PaulT continued "...The Reformed position postulates that man in his fallen state is an enemy of the one true God and will not chose God, his will is “enslaved” a term I herd Gregg confirm, to sin. Reformers don’t think Ro 3 is hyperbole. Therefore when man evaluates the evidence of God he will always view the evidence through a self-authenticating, self-sufficient basis and as such will not chose God...."

Okay then. If this is true, then what exactly is the purpose for the existence and work of the devil to "blind the minds of those who don't believe" (2 Cor. 4:3) if they will not believe anyway, regardless of his deceptive activity? I mean, supposing the Reformed postulation on this issue (the nature of fallen man) is true, then those who are not unconditionally chosen for eternal life wouldn't believe even if the devil did not exist. However, Jesus seems to have placed some blame on the devil, when He said "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside." I percieve this to be a role of the wicked one in the life of those who are unbelievers after they hear the word of the kingdom and do not understand it. The implication seems to me that the wicked one snatches away the word to keep the power behind the word at work in the heart from coming to full potential, which would essentially be a comprehension of the message which would direct and move the unbeliever to turn from sin and believe in the Lord Jesus. Now if the Reformed position on Romans 3 is correct, why does the devil work in this way, if those who are not chosen for eternal life will not believe anyway?

You kind of lost me on that last sentence where you said "when man evaluates the evidence of God he will always view the evidence through a self-authenticating, self-sufficient basis and as such will not chose God"

Are you telling me that the unbeliever can evaluates the evidence, (which I presume you to mean the gospel presentation and things related)? I thought there is none who seeks God, in consequence of the nature of the unbeliever? So the unbeliever who is said to be "dead" in sins can evaluate the evidence and presentation of the gospel?

You continued: ...The Reformed view states that God allows men to go to Hell while enabling some to recognize their condition which then leads to repentance ... it is not that God will not allow men to repent, men don’t want to repent due to their bias that is the result of their sin nature...

I'm confused, so perhaps you could help me out a bit. I was of the understanding that Calvin believed there was no distinguishable difference between saying God allowed something and saying that God decreed something.

Calvin writes,

“why shall we say ‘permission’ unless God so wills?...I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that ‘the will of God is the necessity of things,’ and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass...” Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, tran. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 3.23.8.

Is the Reformed position not the same as Calvin's position, or are you misrepresenting Calvinism here?

It seems to me that if God indeed ordains all things, speaking in terms of what God “allows” or “permits” is an equivocation, as Calvin admitted. If this is indeed true, then it appears that you are trying to soften the harshness of this as it relates the destiny of all those who are not chosen by saying that God “allows” men to go to hell.

Thanks Paul,
Troy

[Guest]

BSHOW wrote:

Well, these are kind of Christianity 101, so I'm not sure what you're driving at unless you want to deny original sin, in which case I'll leave you to it.

Even Paul was not aware of the doctrine of the Original Sin.

It was Augustine who invented this idea.

[Guest]

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30, NKJV)

Well, we can all agree on this. But the Calvinist insists the One commanding repentance simultaneously will not allow most to repent. He has predetermined they will not and are to be eternally damned. And this brings Him glory.

Hmm. Seems like a paradox to me.

I believe this is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position. Perhaps you’ve heard the term, “but there for the grace of God go I”? The Reformed position postulates that man in his fallen state is an enemy of the one true God and will not chose God, his will is “enslaved” a term I herd Gregg confirm, to sin. Reformers don’t think Ro 3 is hyperbole. Therefore when man evaluates the evidence of God he will always view the evidence through a self-authenticating, self-sufficient basis and as such will not chose God. The Reformed view states that God allows men to go to Hell while enabling some to recognize their condition which then leads to repentance. The above representation, as far as I know or understand is a red herring because it is not that God will not allow men to repent, men don’t want to repent due to their bias that is the result of their sin nature.

PaulT

PaulT,

Here is a section of the Westminster Catechism,

3:3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (Matt 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death (Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22, 23; Eph 1:5, 6).

3:4 These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished (John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19).

The reformed position does indeed say that some men were fore ordain to eternal destruction, not because of the fall, but because God ordained it. This is one of the things that made me leave Calvinism.

Butch.

[Guest]

Who made man? Why does man hate God? Was Adam in this "love our sin and hate God" mode?

Hi Sean,

Well, these are kind of Christianity 101, so I'm not sure what you're driving at unless you want to deny original sin, in which case I'll leave you to it.

To the extent that Adam or anyone else loved God, it was due to the influence of His grace.

Cheers,
Bob

Ok, here is what I'm getting at. You said:

God does not actively "prevent" the reprobate from coming to faith; He doesn't need to. Apart from the active operation of the Holy Spirit to change us, we love our sin and hate God, and would never come to Him.

Other than this being your opinion, my question was meant to understand the creation of man and Adam's nature.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness

Is God's likeness and image likely to be the way you described it? Was Adam punished because he acted according to his nature, a nature that is in God's image and likeness? Or was it because Adam did something contrary to his nature/image/likeness?

Do you hold a view of Adam that says the fall affected Adams children or do you hold a view of Adam that says his nature was always to love sin and hate God.

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

bshow1, you said :See Prov. 16:4 for example....

Perhaps you could give your thoughts to this, because this has already been addressed. Go hereto read the relevant posts on this verse (among other verses deemed important to Calvinism by it's adherents). If you decide to defend this verse, please do so there.

bshow1 wrote: Your illustration about the sick man is not apt. Didn't Jesus say, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners?" (Mk. 2:17, NASB) The Pharisees were the "righteous" who didn't see their sickness.

I'm confused. I thought the Pharisees were "dead" in their sins. How can they be sick if they are dead? If you are dead, you can not also be sick. You need to explain this, because the doctrine of total depravity/inability takes the term dead and applies it in an absolute literal way in regards to the unbelievers. Why is the same methodology not consistently applied to the term "sick," which is also a term to describe those who do not believe.

[Guest]

Troy I hope you don't mind if I interrupt

I'm confused. I thought the Pharisees were "dead" in their sins. How can they be sick if they are dead? If you are dead, you can not also be sick. You need to explain this, because the doctrine of total depravity/inability takes the term dead and applies it in an absolute literal way in regards to the unbelievers. Why is the same methodology not consistently applied to the term "sick," which is also a term to describe those who do not believe.

But I like your logic here!!!!!!!!!!

BSHow1 please read the previous posting of Troy just above my post.