ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
yes artie, she is
the most important role of a parent is bringing their children up in Christ
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
yes artie, she is
the most important role of a parent is bringing their children up in Christ
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Bye.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Okay then.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
[MENTION=17355]popsthebuilder[/MENTION]
AMR
Did I not directly answer your questions? Please point me to my omission and I will make amends as best as I am able.
AMR
popsthebuilder
New member
You answered the question only after applying copious amounts of unneeded insult, disrespect and utter disregard to those who have a differing opinion from your own. Imagine a teacher who prior to correcting a student, exclaims that they are of no worth and a waste of time. How eager would that student be to take in what you say that might have any value after you publicly regard them as not worth your time?
How many people do you know of that can easily learn from the same person that insults them? What I am trying to say is that communication breaks down into an unprofitable mess when hatred, anger, greed and pride are added.
Needless to say; I pretty much was only able to give your post a fleeting glance after reading your atrocious first paragraph.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Robert,
I pointed you to one of my many responses to the OP. It contains a reasoned explanation with additional pointers to yet a more thorough treatment of the matter of Adam's original sin. Rather than telling me what you think I have stated, how about you use exactly what I actually stated and try to draw the same conclusions. You cannot. Rather you continue to insist to instruct me about what I believe without taking the time to read exactly what I state I believe. Please interact with my own words in the post and its included pointer to my more detailed treatment of original sin if you really want to have a discussion.
Being made upright, Adam was not confirmed upright. Adam was made with the possibility of sinning. Therefore, no new inclination was introduced in order to "move" him to sin. Free agency chose to receive the error of the serpent and subsequently to partake of the forbidden fruit. There is nothing libertarian about this because God did not create Adam with a "necessity" to obey.
I would hope everyone agrees that Adam had moral ability. As per WCF 9.1, I am working with the definition of free will of Adam that "God hath endued the will of man with that natural ability, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil."
We are discussing how Adam, having freedom to do what is good (moral), nevertheless chose what is evil (moral). Adam had this ability, but was mutable; and because he was mutable—possessing the power to sin or not sin—he might fall. The answer therefore does not lie in philosophical theories as to the natural power of the will, for these only concern the power of the will to choose to act in accord with the determinate counsel of God, and do not pertain to the will towards good or evil in particular.
What these definitions do mean is that Adam could not have sinned unless he had the desire to sin. "Sin" is a moral relation. It is not an action in and of itself. "Desire to sin" is a relative value, not a physical quality. If a man has intercourse with a woman the action is not sin in itself. It the woman is his wife, it is good. If the woman is not his wife, it is evil. Eating from the tree was an action indifferent in itself. It became morally evil when God prohibited it. Hence the "sin" was not in the action, but in the prohibition. Philosophical necessity can explain why Adam might choose one action over another. It cannot explain why he would choose "sin" over "righteousness."
Therefore, the mutability and free-will of man is taken in conjunction with the false idea implanted in his mind by the Serpent, which now begins to serve as a satisfactory explanation (since the issue at hand is not philosophical, but theological). Any help or assistance possibly given to Adam by God can be bifurcated into
(1) The Power of Not sinning (which he always had, even in the moment of his first sin); and,
(2) The Efficacious grace, which was yet still undeserved, which served as an action or efficacious motion to good.
Thus, when this actual motion to good was withheld, and man was—though retaining his ability not to sin—left to his own mutability, Adam willingly succumbed most freely to the false idea of the Devil, without receiving any impelling action or motion from God toward a new inclination. Theologically speaking, we are able to prevent God from being the author or "incliner" of man's sin: God has not given to Adam some new desire, God has not taken away Adam's liberty to not sin, and so on.
No mystery is required to explain how an upright man, Adam, became a sinner. It lies in the fact that the upright man was yet to be confirmed in his uprightness. The probation was set before him on the understanding that man was mutable and could sin. His nature therefore possessed the possibility of sinning. The first man is of the earth, earthy. He already had an earthy nature. Eating the forbidden fruit involved choosing earthly happiness at the expense of heavenly fellowship with God, something which his mutably upright, yet earthly nature, was quite capable of doing by itself without any secondary influence from God.
Man is created with moral quality (reasonable and immortal souls), moral ability (having the law of God written in their hearts), and moral liberty (being left to the liberty of their own will). This is what makes man a capable moral agent, and as such is morally culpable for his actions.
AMR
I never, in ten years, seen him do that?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I see. After you go back you will see I answered you.
I am trying to pull you from the doctrinal fires you are toying with; it is going to hurt you and me (Jude 22-23).
AMR
For someone who knows absolutely jack about Calvinism, simply going by the falsehoods of a moronic few on here, you throw a bunch of flack.
You don't understand Calvinism, because if you did you would know how stupid your statements are. Calvinism is not a rejection of free will, it is an exposition on the prevalence of predestination.
That is WHAT IT IS. How you all can sit there and act, perpetually, as if it is something else is ridiculous. I have no doubt that it's been going on for years on here, imagining a nightmare that was never there.
These Darbyists will sit here and do all that- before crying and crucifying themselves as soon as someone speaks against them. There's nothing closer to being a CHILD than that, and seriously needs to desist.
Darbyists know how heterodox they are deep down, and that's why they attack traditional theology. You'll notice that traditional Christians don't spend all day obsessing over others' beliefs like these folk.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh wow, it's Captain Crankshaft himself....
First off, I knew about Calvinism before I even became a member here, and frankly, what exactly am I missing?
Is it not true that if loved ones, children and family aren't part of the elite - sorry, 'elect', they're damned to an eternity of suffering and there's not a darn thing anyone can do about it? It's all the sovereign will of God for this to take place from the outset?
That's right Brain, in calvinism, most families are damned to hell !!
Everything, because you are falsely demonizing sovereign election. Those not of the elect will not be saved, and that is not a bad thing, you just have no idea what you are talking about :wave:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ah, so puerile little misogynists like yourself can be part of the 'club' then. Good to know.
:e4e:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Amen!
One is a genuine Christian who believes so . . .
(The accusation of being "Calvinist" for so testifying is just a devilish attempt to distract from what is truthful and right.)
What makes him a "Misogynist?"
Calvinism is filled to the brim with false doctrine, a false gospel, and a false representation of the character of the God of the Bible. Three strikes and you're out pal.
You poor soul. You're completely bankrupt when it comes to Spiritual matters. You have my pity, buddy.