Unraveling the confusion of God’s Decree: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

[makesends]

No. I said what I mean. Adam was peccable and it had nothing to do with His nature. He was incomplete. He was never the target of God's purpose. Just the beginning. The goal has always been those in Christ Jesus.

It's amazing what you read into what I say. I don't think, nor did I imply, that he was impeccable "he was...the target of God's purpose". In fact, that notion goes dead against Calvinism and against what I believe!

Maybe the way you read into things explains how you come up with the scripture interpretations that you do. (And yes, I admit the same for myself —it is unavoidable, actually, though a healthy self-skepticism is possible.)

Nonsense..... It was never adherence to the law that proved anything. Jesus told you what proved His Divinity. You should listen to Jesus instead of the supposed "Reformers".....

Joh 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Luk 10:13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
Luk 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.
Luk 10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.
Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

None were like Jesus. NONE.

He loves like no other. He is Father to the fatherless. Benefactor of the poor. Healer of the broken. He is altogether lovely.

What in the world are you going on about? How does any of this counter Calvinism, or how does Calvinism counter this? Educate me here!

The fact that I see implications doesn't mean that my conclusions are doctrine, nor even valid, for that matter. I offer them as speculation and interesting, and sometimes even relate why I see them the way I do. But you make like they are my central tenets or something. Back off, Jack!

Even Sproul mostly stayed away from the HU. The fact you're responding in such a manner tells me that you don't really know the subject.

Sproul wrote a whole book with the HU as a central point to show that mere chance is an illogical notion. (The book is called, Not A Chance. A great read, in my opinion.)

Those who really want to know the relationship of God to humanity need to understand the HU and most people don't care to know it.

True. What I'm wondering is why you think Calvinists or the Reformed or I shrink from it. We don't.

KINDLY (not antagonistically, if you wish to convince me of anything) show me where Reformed Theology, or Calvinism, or I, 1) teach impeccability concerning Adam; 2) teach that Adam was the target of God's purpose —and no, being intentionally created and used for God's purposes is not what we are talking about—don't go there; 3) shrink from HU;

Where did his nature change ?

Just as I thought it didn't. Nothing there at all about any nature changing. All that there is a choice to sin and its results from that sin.

And notice since adam is now "dead in sin" a corpse (clvinism) he cannot communicate with God until he is regenerated- yet in the above verse adam is still communicating with God - so much for the sin nature changing adam so he cannot see, hear or understand God. So much for being a fallen, sin nature, dead corpse, hater of God eh ?

Thus, for those few (if any) who believe there is absolutely no communication between God and unregenerate man, there is reason to believe that God regenerated Adam. And for those who read the OT (and the New) obvious citations to show that God can (and does) talk to anyone he has a reason to talk to, which is not the same thing as fellowship with God.

For what it is worth: Being "dead in sin" does not mean that God can't hear every thought of the mind of even the worst impenitent. I don't know of any Calvinist who believes that. (You seem to me to be gone too long , drawing conclusions on arrangements of words, seen through the self-deterministic filter, rather than on what is actually taught. The Bible does indeed say that God will not listen to the impenitent, and that "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me". That does not mean he doesn't speak to them nor that he doesn't even reason with them).

 

[civic]

It's amazing what you read into what I say. I don't think, nor did I imply, that he was impeccable "he was...the target of God's purpose". In fact, that notion goes dead against Calvinism and against what I believe!

Maybe the way you read into things explains how you come up with the scripture interpretations that you do. (And yes, I admit the same for myself —it is unavoidable, actually, though a healthy self-skepticism is possible.)

What in the world are you going on about? How does any of this counter Calvinism, or how does Calvinism counter this? Educate me here!

The fact that I see implications doesn't mean that my conclusions are doctrine, nor even valid, for that matter. I offer them as speculation and interesting, and sometimes even relate why I see them the way I do. But you make like they are my central tenets or something. Back off, Jack!

Sproul wrote a whole book with the HU as a central point to show that mere chance is an illogical notion. (The book is called, Not A Chance. A great read, in my opinion.)

True. What I'm wondering is why you think Calvinists or the Reformed or I shrink from it. We don't.

KINDLY (not antagonistically, if you wish to convince me of anything) show me where Reformed Theology, or Calvinism, or I, 1) teach impeccability concerning Adam; 2) teach that Adam was the target of God's purpose —and no, being intentionally created and used for God's purposes is not what we are talking about—don't go there; 3) shrink from HU;



Thus, for those few (if any) who believe there is absolutely no communication between God and unregenerate man, there is reason to believe that God regenerated Adam. And for those who read the OT (and the New) obvious citations to show that God can (and does) talk to anyone he has a reason to talk to, which is not the same thing as fellowship with God.

For what it is worth: Being "dead in sin" does not mean that God can't hear every thought of the mind of even the worst impenitent. I don't know of any Calvinist who believes that. (You seem to me to be gone too long , drawing conclusions on arrangements of words, seen through the self-deterministic filter, rather than on what is actually taught. The Bible does indeed say that God will not listen to the impenitent, and that "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me". That does not mean he doesn't speak to them nor that he doesn't even reason with them).

Do believers have iniquity in their heart, do they sin ?

Does God hear them ?

 

[makesends]

no thats realizing his sin and its effects.

Do you consider peccability the same as having a sin nature? Do you disagree that humans since Adam are innately sinful? Or do you describe it differently, though you agree with that statement (that humans since Adam are innately sinful) in principle?

 

[civic]

Do you consider peccability the same as having a sin nature? Do you disagree that humans since Adam are innately sinful? Or do you describe it differently, though you agree with that statement (that humans since Adam are innately sinful) in principle?

I don't affirm the augustinian sin nature.

I believe we become sinners when we sin as many scriptures affirm.

I do not believe my 6 month old grandson is a dirty rotten little sinner. Now my 12 year old grandson is for sure

 

[praise_yeshua]

Do you consider peccability the same as having a sin nature? Do you disagree that humans since Adam are innately sinful? Or do you describe it differently, though you agree with that statement (that humans since Adam are innately sinful) in principle?

Humans do not have the Divine Character of God. Neither did Adam when He was created. Humans now do not have Eternal life. Neither did Adam. Adam was driven away from the tree of life.

The descendents of Adam have more problems in Adam in the fact they are born with zero ability to help themselves. Adam was not "born". Humans now must learn. They must grow. Like Adam, they have a sense of innocence but are very lacking in knowledge. They only know what they LEARN...... Adam learned directly from God. The descendents of Adam only learn from their parents.

I could go on but I'd like for you to consider what I just said. Thanks

 

[makesends]

I don't affirm the augustinian sin nature.

I believe we become sinners when we sin as many scriptures affirm.

I do not believe my 6 month old grandson is a dirty rotten little sinner. Now my 12 year old grandson is for sure

Then I can't help but wonder if you think some who are not elect, are nevertheless exempt from the Romans 8 "mind of flesh", and if so, how are they possibly exempt. Do you think we have not inherited the sin nature from Adam? Or do you have some other definition for "mind of flesh".

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't affirm the augustinian sin nature.

I believe we become sinners when we sin as many scriptures affirm.

I do not believe my 6 month old grandson is a dirty rotten little sinner. Now my 12 year old grandson is for sure

I've had similar experiences....

 

[civic]

Then I can't help but wonder if you think some who are not elect, are nevertheless exempt from the Romans 8 "mind of flesh", and if so, how are they possibly exempt. Do you think we have not inherited the sin nature from Adam? Or do you have some other definition for "mind of flesh".

Every believer and unbeliever have a mind that contains "flesh " thoughts that are not from the Spirit of God, carnal.

The better question is can infants think and process those thoughts and reason them ?

 

[makesends]

Humans do not have the Divine Character of God.

I agree.

Neither did Adam when He was created.

I agree.

Humans now do not have Eternal life.

I agree.

Neither did Adam.

I agree.

Adam was driven away from the tree of life.

I agree.

The descendents of Adam have more problems in Adam in the fact they are born with zero ability to help themselves.

I agree

Adam was not "born".

I agree

Humans now must learn. They must grow.

I agree

Like Adam, they have a sense of innocence but are very lacking in knowledge.

I agree

They only know what they LEARN......

I agree

Adam learned directly from God.

I agree.

The descendents of Adam only learn from their parents.

I agree.

I could go on but I'd like for you to consider what I just said. Thanks

What is to consider? You make like I'm ignorant of these obvious facts.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then I can't help but wonder if you think some who are not elect, are nevertheless exempt from the Romans 8 "mind of flesh", and if so, how are they possibly exempt. Do you think we have not inherited the sin nature from Adam? Or do you have some other definition for "mind of flesh".

I believe you shouldn't assume your version of "election" is true. God chose Jesus Christ. There was a target God had in election. That target was Jesus Christ. The "elect" of God. This entire life is about conforming man into the image of Jesus Christ. That requires the willing..... The willing servant.

Exo 21 is a parallel of this life. It gives us the reason this life has been designed the way it has been designed. It is designed to produce the willing servant.


Exo 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
Exo 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree

I agree

I agree

I agree

I agree

I agree.

I agree.

What is to consider? You make like I'm ignorant of these obvious facts.

I never said you was. However, I don't see how this applies to your view.

The teaching of Total Depravity requires the loss of eternal life in Adam when He fell. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[makesends]

Every believer and unbeliever have a mind that contains "flesh " thoughts that are not from the Spirit of God, carnal.

The better question is can infants think and process those thoughts and reason them ?

You seem to me to be sidestepping the real issue. Is man inherently sinful and bound for hell? Why does man, without exception (except Jesus himself) choose to sin? Do you reject Arminianism?

 

[makesends]

I believe you shouldn't assume your version of "election" is true. God chose Jesus Christ. There was a target God had in election. That target was Jesus Christ. The "elect" of God. This entire life is about conforming man into the image of Jesus Christ. That requires the willing..... The willing servant.

Exo 21 is a parallel of this life. It gives us the reason this life has been designed the way it has been designed. It is designed to produce the willing servant.


Exo 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
Exo 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

This entire life is about God, not me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You seem to me to be sidestepping the real issue. Is man inherently sinful and bound for hell? Why does man, without exception (except Jesus himself) choose to sin? Do you reject Arminianism?

I'd like to point out that you've said that Adam was not created with Eternal life. If you don't have Eternal life, what happens?

 

[praise_yeshua]

This entire life is about God, not me.

I realize that you believe that. It is a requirement for your beliefs. There is reason to everything we state. We are rational beings. Which is an indication that we are not Total Depraved. All human beings reason. In fact, God asked man...

"Come now, let us REASON together."

God doesn't need us. Never has. Never will.

 

[civic]

You seem to me to be sidestepping the real issue. Is man inherently sinful and bound for hell? Why does man, without exception (except Jesus himself) choose to sin? Do you reject Arminianism?

No since babies and infants do not all go to hell when they die disproves the sinful nature and calvinisms total depravity.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No since babies and infants do not all go to hell when they die disproves the sinful nature and calvinisms total depravity.

A good conversation would be to discuss exactly what Adam supposedly "lost" when he disobeyed God. It is a good conversation. I've found that Calvinism does a very poor job of addressing the issue. In fact, Calvinism doesn't really address the issue. There are way too many assumptions made.

 

[civic]

A good conversation would be to discuss exactly what Adam supposedly "lost" when he disobeyed God. It is a good conversation. I've found that Calvinism does a very poor job of addressing the issue. In fact, Calvinism doesn't really address the issue. There are way too many assumptions made.

Correct since its an argument from silence. Gods image in man never changed and its why all men are still made in His image and likeness which is why only man was redeemable and not the angels who were not made in Gods likeness/image. A distinction with a HUGE difference. Its why Christ died for all because all have value to God. The greatest act of love in human history and not a wrathful Father to Son punishment.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Correct since its an argument from silence. Gods image in man never changed and its why all men are still made in His image and likeness which is why only man was redeemable and not the angels who were not made in Gods likeness/image. A distinction with a HUGE difference. Its why Christ died for all because all have value to God. The greatest act of love in human history and not a wrathful Father to Son punishment.

Absolutely.

Over the years, my view of love has changed significantly in my theology .

There is a difference in HOW and WHY people love. Love itself...... can be self serving. The selfless love of God is where God "committed His love toward us, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us".

The love of God isn't self serving. It is for OUR benefit. Which is just one of the reasons I say that God doesn't NEED us.

Some people love God solely based upon what they think they can get from Him. Another challenge in this life is to understand how to love like God. It not a measure of need. Though we are nothing without Him. You can NEED something and not know what it means to selflessly love.

 

[civic]

Absolutely.

Over the years, my view of love has changed significantly in my theology .

There is a difference in HOW and WHY people love. Love itself...... can be self serving. The selfless love of God is where God "committed His love toward us, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us".

The love of God isn't self serving. It is for OUR benefit. Which is just one of the reasons I say that God doesn't NEED us.

Some people love God solely based upon what they think they can get from Him. Another challenge in this life is to understand how to love like God. It not a measure of need. Though we are nothing without Him. You can NEED something and not know what it means to selflessly love.

Bingo