In Calvinism why are the sinners God made responsible for what God has made them?

[Fastfredy0]

When Jesus spoke of doing the Father’s will as in :
“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” which will did he mean and secondly, in your “sovereign will” theology, everyone does the Fathers will right? So what does Jesus mean when he speaks of obeying or doing his will and the promises that go along with that?

Hmmm.... get's tricky when one talks about Jesus. He has 2 natures. By definition each of the 2 natures will obey the Father's moral will. The divine will of Christ is identical to the divine will of the Father as they are one God so their wills are identical. Gee, I don't want to go further as even the great theologians say it a mystery to some extent.
Aside: Best I can come up with ... God uses a human body and limits that body such that it works like ours. So, God knows all, never sleeps; but God in Christ limits what the body can do. It gets tired, it's emotions change, it doesn't know everything. Gee, I can't answer the question. Jesus' 2 natures too complicated for me. Our discussion is about the relationship of God to man and not God to the God/man.

Again, Can you supply scripture that says we all do his sovereign will?

I did. Many of the verses you said something like: "well, that sovereign will only applies to evil people" (something like that. I think we have to assume it applies to all people unless you have a good reason to think otherwise based on rational logic or scripture.
Here's the list again. Some verses are more explicit than others. Hmmm... let's make the question tougher, let's list verses saying God controls evil amongst other things including man.

God Controls Evil and Man – Scripture Verses ​

“If it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent God, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish. And if we do not believe this, the very first sentence of our creed is endangered, wherein we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty.” Augustine

1. Genesis 20:6 Then in the dream God replied to him [Abimelech concerning Abraham’s wife], “Yes, I know that you have done this with a clear conscience. That is why I have kept you from sinning against me and why I did not allow you to touch her
2. Exodus 4:11 The Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute or the deaf, or the seeing or the blind? Is it not I, the Lord? If man causes someone to be deaf or blind it is sin; if God does causes deafness or blindness, it is not sin.
3. Joshua 11:20 For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, that [Israel] might destroy them utterly, and that without favor and mercy, as the Lord commanded Moses. The Canaanites were destroyed by Joshua
4. Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, [which aided him in the killing of his brethren ]
5. Judges 14:4 …it was from the LORD; for he was seeking an occasion against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel. Samson’s demand to marry an unbelieving Philistine woman
6. 1 Samuel 2:25 The sons of Eli, when rebuked for their evil deeds, “But they would not listen to their father, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death”.
7. 1 Samuel 16:14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented and troubled him.
8. 1 Samuel 18:10 Now it came about on the next day that an evil spirit from God came forcefully on Saul, and he raved [madly] inside his house, while David was playing the harp with his hand, as usual; and there was a spear in Saul’s hand. 11 Saul hurled the spear, for he thought, “I will pin David to the wall.” But David evaded him twice.
9. 1 Samuel 19:9 Then an evil spirit from the Lord came on Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing the harp with his hand.
10. 2 Samuel 12:11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will stir up evil against you from your own household; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and [in broad daylight.]’” When David sinned, the LORD said to him through Nathan the prophet, [Fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21, 22.]
11. 2 Samuel 16:11 Let him alone and let him curse, for [it could be that] the Lord has told him [to do it]. When Shimei cursed David and threw stones at him and his servants (2 Samuel 15:5-8), David refused to take vengeance on Shimei but said to his soldiers, “the Lord has told him [to do it]”.
12. (2 Samuel 24:1) The Lord “incited” David to take a census of the people, but afterward David recognized this as sin, saying, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done” (2 Samuel 24:10), and God sent punishment on the land because of this sin (2 Samuel 24:12-17). However, it is clear that “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel” (2 Samuel 24:1), so God’s inciting of David to sin was a means by which he brought about punishment on the people of Israel. Moreover, the means by which God incited David is made clear in 1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.” The Bible shows here that God, in order to bring about His purposes, worked through Satan to incite David to sin, but Scripture regards David as being responsible for that sin.
13. After Solomon turned away from the Lord because of his foreign wives, “the LORD raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite” (1 Kings 11:14), and “God also raised up as an adversary to him, Rezon the son of Eliada” (1 Kings 11:23). These were evil kings raised up by God.
14. 1 Kings 22:23 The Lord “put a lying spirit in the mouth” of Ahab’s prophets God wills that the perfidious Ahab should be deceived; the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent with a definite command to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets (2 Kings 22:20). If the blinding and infatuation of Ahab is a judgment from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he wishes to be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it to his ministers.
15. Job - The LORD gave Satan permission to bring harm to Job’s possessions and children, and though this harm came through the evil actions of the Sabeans and the Chaldeans, as well as a windstorm (Job 1:12, 15,17,19), yet Job looks beyond those secondary causes and, with the eyes of faith, sees it all as from the hand of the Lord: “the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away: blessed be the name of the LORD” 22 In all this Job sinned not nor charged God foolishly. (Job 1:21-22). Though Job says that the LORD had done this, yet he does not blame God for evil that he had brought about through secondary agents…for this would have been to sin.
16. Job 23:13 "But He is one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth".
17. Psalm 33:10 The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He makes the thoughts and plans of the people ineffective. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The thoughts and plans of His heart through all generations.
18. Isaiah 10:5 The Lord sent the wicked Assyrians as “the rod of my anger” to punish Israel. Isaiah 31:2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil [some translations use “calamity”, “bad”, “woe”, “ill”, “bad things”], and will not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evil-doers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. (ASV)
19. Isaiah 14:24 The Lord of hosts has sworn [an oath], saying, “Just as I have intended, so it has certainly happened, and just as I have planned, so it will stand—
20. Isaiah 14:27 "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?".
21. Isaiah 31:2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil [some translations use “calamity”, “bad”, “woe”, “ill”, “bad things”], and will not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evil-doers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. (ASV)

Hmmm ... won't all fit ... I can give more if you like

 

[Fastfredy0]

Romans 7:9 shows us that the verses you cite do not mean a person is born guilty of sin.

That's your private interpretation. I can't find anyone that agrees with you. You didn't bother to exegete my verses to show how they indicated we are born sinful is the incorrect interpretation. I can multiple verses as more evidence to show we are born sinful .

I'll exegete your verse showing it has nothing to do with disproving we are born in sin:

Paul was relatively "alive apart from the Law." No one is ever completely unrelated to or unaffected by it. However, in his past, Paul had lived unaware of the Law's true demands and was therefore self-righteous (cf. Phil. 3:6). His pre-conversion struggles were mainly intellectual (e.g., Was Jesus the Messiah?) rather than moral.

"Saul of Tarsus could have headed the Spanish Inquisition, and have had no qualms of conscience!"[466]

When the commandment entered Paul's consciousness, it aroused sin, and he died, in the sense that he became aware of his spiritual deadness. This is true of everyone. Paul was not speaking of His union with Christ in death here but of his moment of recognition of his unsaved condition.

"Sin at first is there, but dormant; not until it has the help of the Law does it become an active power of mischief."
Tom Constable

_______________________________
For I -- The “I” is emphatic. Is the apostles here referring to his own past experience? Or is he speaking the sentiment of all who are unconverted, and who are depending on their own righteousness?


was alive once -- When he with confidence thought himself righteous, and doing-right.


Paul describes a figurative existence in which a person is unaware of sin and undisturbed by condemnation from the law. This might refer to Paul’s own experience before becoming a Christian - FSB


Subjectively he was “alive;” unconscious of resistance to God, and alienation from Him, and condemnation. - CBSC


without the law -- Was Paul ever really without the Law of Moses? Or is he referring to a time before he came of age and the Law applied to him in its spiritual meaning and with understanding.


but when the commandment came -- When, Paul or the generic person he is speaking of, intelligently understood the Law and its application to his heart and conscience. It is not referring to the time before Sinai where the Law was given.


sin revived -- Lived again. This means that it was before dormant Romans 7:8, but was now quickened into new life. The word is usually applied to a renewal of life, Romans 14:19; Luke 15:24, Luke 15:32, but here it means substantially the same as the expression in Romans 7:8,


and I died -- That is, I was by it involved in additional guilt and misery. It stands opposed to “I was alive,” and must mean the opposite of that; and evidently denotes that the effect of the commandment was to bring him under what he calls death, (compare Romans 5:12, Romans 5:14-15;) that is, sin reigned, and raged, and produced its withering and condemning effects; it led to aggravated guilt and misery. - BN


The essential idea here is, that the Law did not answer the purpose which the Jew would claim for it, to sanctify the soul and to give comfort, but that all its influence on the heart was to produce aggravated, unpardoned guilt and woe. - BN


He realized his deadness, spiritually; that all his religious credentials and accomplishments were rubbish (Philippians 3:7-8). - MSB
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gbc/romans-7.html

Yeah, I know you have your own private interpretation which is the correct one in your mind. You won't find anyone that agrees with your interpretation IMO.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You didn't bother to exegete my verses to show how they indicated we are born sinful is the incorrect interpretation. I can multiple verses as more evidence to show we are born sinful .

What I'm providing you is the virtually unknown and unused technique of using the whole counsel of scripture to exegete a verse or passage of scripture.

That is how one rightly divides the scriptures. Calvinism un-rightly divides the verses away from the whole counsel of the Bible that it uses to insist man is imputed the guilt of sin at birth that he has not committed yet.

Romans 7:9 and Romans 5:12-14 prevent you from interpreting your sin scriptures to mean we are born guilty of sin we did not commit.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul was relatively "alive apart from the Law." No one is ever completely unrelated to or unaffected by it. However, in his past, Paul had lived unaware of the Law's true demands and was therefore self-righteous (cf. Phil. 3:6).

This is easily debunked with simple logic. Obviously, Paul had to know the law in order to live the self righteous life of the Law. Philippians 3:9

"9...my own righteousness from the law..."

So there is no argument possible that Paul did not know the true demands of the Law. He had to know the law in order to craft his self righteous life of the law.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Premise1: Romans 11:34 rhetorical question implying no one counsels God. God does not learn (which would contradict His immutability.
Premise 2: Free Will implies God learns from our FREE (not determined by God) will choices.
Conclusion: We tell God things He didn't know.
Aside: Free Wills usual response IMO ...well, that's a mystery (in other words, they can't explain it

Premise 2 is wrong. It assumes God does not know because He does not control. It underestimates the intelligence of God. There are a number of things we as men know but do not control. Lots and lots.

Gee, I butchered that ... my bad. Try this:

Premise 1: GOD's only source of knowledge is Himself before creation.
Premise 2: From nothing, nothing comes. ex nihilo nihil fit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
Premise 3: God knows all things
Premise 4: God is immutable (thus God always knew all things)
Conclusion: He must have determined the entire future down to the where each atom would be at any moment in time: thus, free will is a fantasy (for the source of His immutable, eternal knowledge at one time was limited to Himself.

Aside: R.C. Sproul states “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.”

Why then did God punish Cain if it was not his fault?

I am assuming you are saying it's not Cain's "fault" because God determined Cain would kill Able.

Answer:
Cain is responsible because God says so. Now, I know that does not coincide with our concept of what how responsibility is associated with a person. We associate responsibility to be tied in with moral concepts which is a false premise. Consider the following:

1. Responsibility (what your calling fault) is defined as: Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust. Thus, the premise that responsibility is not to be associated with morality. (aside: that's not to say people don't often link responsibility to morality)
2. The example in the bible of Jacob being loved and Esau being hated before birth is questioned as to why God finds fault though neither had done anything morally wrong. Paul says they are responsible and side steps the question by saying "who are you to even ask the question". Romans 9
3. Examples where man doesn't do any wrong morally and yet held responsible ... such examples thus supporting the contention that responsibility can be assigned by God when one has not done something morally wrong.
a) The assignment of guilt because of Adam to everyone. Ephesians 2:3; 1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die
b) Parents Action imputed to Children ... Exodus 34:7b visiting (avenging) the iniquity (sin, guilt) of the fathers upon the children and the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations [that is, calling the children to account for the sins of their fathers].”
c) Rulers actions affect nations. That all of a nation suffer and are punished for the sins of their rulers and representatives is taught throughout the whole history of God's dealings with Israel. A
signal instance of this was the punishment of all Israel because of the sins of Eli and his
sons. Compare 1 Samuel 3:11-14 with 1 Samuel 4:10-22.
d) Isaiah 63:17 O Lord, why have You made us [able] to err from Your ways and hardened our hearts to [reverential] fear of You? Return [to bless us] for Your servants’ sake, the tribes of Your heritage. [one of many examples of God’s sovereign will controlling the hearts of men for which men are held responsible]

besides it attributing injustice to God to make a command he cannot keep and punish him for that.

This is a false premise as I showed with many verses of God's commands that we cannot keep. One example again: 1 Corinthians 15:34 “Awake to righteousness and sin not”.

_____________
Re I said:

• Luke 7:14 “a dead man was being carried out…Then He came and touched the open coffin…and He said, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise.'” The dead man couldn’t hear, until Christ first gave His miraculous power to him.

You assume you know how the miracles of Christ worked behind the scenes? The body is more than ears. And by the way, you quote the verses, but you are going beyond them assuming in depth knowledge of the matter where no scripture gives it. The dead man had a spirit and spirits hear.

I gave the verse as another example of a command Christ/God gave (telling a dead person to become alive) that the man could not do on his own. This was in response to your request for examples of God giving commands that men cannot obey.
Your comments seem to believe a dead man can come to life without God causing it. Give me an example.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Back to our regularly scheduled program...

LOL

your theology has you being comfortable with accusing God of evil.

COMPLETE AND UTTER MISREPRESENTATION. I won't bother commenting further on that statement.

When one believes that God does not always do moral good,

MISREPRESENTATION. God is good. God is holy. I won't bother commenting further on that statement.

He who comes to God must believe that He is good because He is good.

aside: circular logic *giggle*

So perhaps we move on from this point...

Set me on afire and leave ... hit below the belt in this post. I know you mean well. Gee, you never even address the syllogism. Just shot illegitimate arrows IMO.

I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped

And they foresaked God as God determined they world. Nothing here again saying man did something independent of God. It's your assumption to fit you theology. GIVE ME A VERSE SAYING MAN DID 'X' AND GOD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Give me a verse telling me about FREE WILL. Show me a verse where anything or anyone does anything and God had nothing to do with it... You can't because God says "For in him we live, and move, and have our being" Same for Isaiah 66:4.

You said: Ezekiel 20:21 But the children rebelled against Me. They did not walk in My statutes or carefully ...
... the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees
Nothing here about saying God did not control the situation. Nothing here about them not following God's decree.
Find a verse where GOD say I want "X" to happen and then "X" did not happen. You got the "X" but no verse saying God didn't decree "X". You just assume you know God's will. Walking according to God's statues (laws) is different than God's decree/plan.

I guess it is so obvious that people do not do the will of God and you admit you do not either that I wonder why you ask to be shown that GOd's will is not followed. Isn't it obvious? Now I know you have avoided this by embracing two different kinds of the will of God. I asked you for scriptures that describe these two DIFFERENT kinds of the will of GOd. Did you find them for me and I missed them?

I explained this. There is God's sovereign will that I follow to the letter and God's commands/laws/moral will which I do not follow to the letter. When I say I stole John's pencil I did not follow God's moral will but I followed His decree.
Otherwise you have dualism (some power you have yet to prove) or deism.

RE: anthropomorphism ... https://www.gotquestions.org/anthropomorphism.html
Example: Isaiah 23:11 He has stretched out his hand over the sea; ... if you don't believe in anthropomorphism's then you believe God has a material hand.
Again, when God makes statements that contradict other statements He has made (Like stretching out his hand and He can't be seen) then we suggest the reason for the apparent contradiction is anthropomorphism. Now, I admit either side of the argument could abuse this. (Aside: I wish God didn't confuse things with anthropomorphisms or parables but He didn't ask my advice.

Well, if you ever get angry at man instead of God, you have violated your theology. Your theology is God wills everything that happen so you need to be angry at God and never man who is just a puppet, right?

I see what your trying to convey. Doesn't work the way you are trying to say it does. You apparently don't know the purpose of God (see, I can do cheap shots without substantiation too i.e. take what you say and make an unsubstantiated conclusion) which is the which helps explain this. Your theology is man-centered IMO, mine is not IMO.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I’m afraid that’s not what I said. If your position is God wills everything all people do, then those who believe this should never ever be angry at any man. If always God who did what occurred. They can be angry at God. It’s all His fault in that theology. Being angry at man shows they don’t believe God is sovereign over man’s choices. They really do blame the man for his freely chosen action, not God.

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. Not my intention as I know you don't purposely misinterpret me.
... anyways ... I see how you could come to this conclusion. Hmmmm ... think of it as Joseph thought of a analogous situation in which
Genesis 50:20 But as for you [Joseph talking to his brothers who 'screwed' him ... can I say "screwed him" on the forum? guess will find out, anyways], ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Joseph didn't hate God for the evil God had come his way though he was justified in being 'ticked' at his brothers. Now, we seldom get an explanation for the evil that happens to us but we know: we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

One of these days I should be on the offensive instead of the defensive (answering you questions ... and my questions would based on bible verses and logic. .. anyways....


Re: Evangelism

I read the Pilgrims didn’t evangelize for that reason.

I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Premise 1: There is no free will for man
Premise 2: Man must make various choices in life

Conclusion: Someone else (God) is making those choices for each man

Premise 1: Nothing happens outside of God’s will.
Premise 2: You sometimes experience injustice because of choices others make
Premise 3: God is actually making those choices for that man

Conclusion: You should never be angry at the perpetrator who had no free will choice but at God who chose for that man.

Yeah, I answered this in previous post with Genesis 50:20
Ponders .... hmmm ... I think you are right ... a Christian should never be angry at the perpetrator because in the over picture we have Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
OF course theory and practical application may not be the same. Hmmm, got "don't let the sun set on your anger" ... and got Psalm 7:11 ... God angry at the wicked every day ... but then definition of God's angry to consider .... hmmm ... to be contemplated on another day.
Aside: As I get older my spelling progressively sucks more; not that it every was a strength ..TY spell checker

I apologize for the poor wording and wrong words. Writing at 3 am has its pitfalls. My syntax and wording is embarrassing. But I know you’re merciful and gracious.

Yes, you are empting my jars of and graciousness *giggle* ... thanks for the sentiment .. .appreciated... it is difficult as "two cannot walk together unless they are agreed" .... so, come to the 'dark side', join me (Star Wars)
3 a.m. ... wow .. I think you should get more sleep ... maybe tell you a boring story of my life as a sleep remedy.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 1: Calvin said God is love
Premise 2: God said He is love
Premise 3: Jethro says Calvin theology is empty theology
Conclusion: Jethro thinks "God is love" is empty theology

This is faulty logic because what Calvin defines as God's love is not God's love.

Agreed ... my logic was flawed. I didn't do a good job on that one.

Your logic is also flawed. "A" cannot = not "A"

 

[Fastfredy0]

Responsibility for sin guilt comes when a person receives accountable knowledge of sin, and commits that sin:

You are responsible when God say you are.
Premise 1: God say you are born in sin (verses supplied earlier and you never exegeted them differently)
Premise 2: Babies do not have knowledge of sin
Conclusion: Your statement is false

 

[Fastfredy0]

When God says he did, it establishes He did. (do you need scripture or do you believe this?) When he says man disobeyed Him, this establishes that He didn’t. (Do you need scripture that man disobeyed or do you believe it?) Going by what God says of Himself as is my habit.

Sorry... didn't follow you ...may be my fault... forum messages and answers can be confusing

I am having troubles following post #678 ... sorry... I lost the context of what I was saying that you responded too.
I guess I need a break.
Hope you are still sleeping.

 

[Fastfredy0]

When God says he did, it establishes He did. (do you need scripture or do you believe this?) When he says man disobeyed Him, this establishes that He didn’t. (Do you need scripture that man disobeyed or do you believe it?) Going by what God says of Himself as is my habit.

Sorry... didn't follow you ...may be my fault... forum messages and answers can be confusing

I am having troubles following post #678 ... sorry... I lost the context of what I was saying that you responded too.
I guess I need a break.
Hope you are still sleeping.

He didn’t reach in and change me. I had free choice all the time.

A lot of verses say IMO that it was God the reached in:

• Isaiah 26:12 Lord, You will establish peace for us, Since You have also performed for us all that we have done.
• John 15:5 I am the Vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him bears much fruit, for [otherwise] apart from Me [that is, cut off from vital union with Me] you can do nothing.
• Romans 8:13 for if you are living according to the [impulses of the] flesh, you are going to die. But if [you are living] by the [power of the Holy] Spirit you are habitually putting to death the sinful deeds of the body, you will [really] live forever.

I could many more
... I would prefer the Spirit reaching in and fixing me rather than myself via free will as He would do a better job (not that this preference proves my premise)
Aside: I had a similar struggle IMO in one area

 

[Fastfredy0]

What I'm providing you is the virtually unknown and unused technique of using the whole counsel of scripture to exegete a verse or passage of scripture.

That is how one rightly divides the scriptures. Calvinism un-rightly divides the verses away from the whole counsel of the Bible that it uses to insist man is imputed the guilt of sin at birth that he has not committed yet.

Romans 7:9 and Romans 5:12-14 prevent you from interpreting your sin scriptures to mean we are born guilty of sin we did not commit.

We've been there, done that. We agree to disagree.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I said:
Agreed, Calvinism says what the bible says.
Premise 1: Calvin said God is love
Premise 2: God said He is love
Premise 3: Jethro says Calvin theology is empty theology
Conclusion: Jethro thinks "God is love" is empty theology



LOL at "playing with the big boys now".
Premises do not to relate to each other. They have to relate to the conclusion as conclusions draw on premises.
OH CRAP, I just reread what I wrote. I didn't form the syllogism as I intended ... nevermind ... YOUR RIGHT ... ooops .. my bad.



Scripture is authoritative and the ultimate source of truth so my request is for you to present the 'ultimate source of truth' to prove you points.

The Devil quoted scripture to Jesus. How come Jesus didn’t then believe and obey the scripture quoted?

The problem is you dismiss scripture that contradicts your position. You think God does not consider the choices of man in full defiance of scripture. You dismiss scripture that clearly describes God doing what Calvin determined he doesn’t calling it an “anthropomorphic” (chaff) meaning that scripture isn’t true. So my impression is that scripture is not as authoritative in your position as you claim. Ones written to
correct your thinking are dismissed.

Ah, this is not true. Admittedly, this is a vulnerability of all bible study of all denominations (see The Hermeneutical Spiral theory). In point of fact, Calvinists emphasize Systematic Theology which is the study of all biblical references on a topic and the bringing of these facts into a cohesive, non conflicting statements of understanding. As evidence of this read their creeds and catechisms. I grant man is fallible and these documents are fallible.
But prove to me your statement is correct. What documentation has been created by non-reformed denominations that organizes bible scripture by topic.

But Calvin IGNORES the scriptures that don’t fit his prechosen theology as do you. That definition of systematic doesn’t describe what he did. I will ask my husband but a lack of books doesn’t say the ones you like represent God accurately. You do realize we are talking about a PERSON not clinical chemistry, right?

Yes, citing individual verses can be abused and misleading. Citing NO VERSES is far less creditable.

The Devil nicely sites verses. What was credible is that the recipient THOUGHT about the meaning of the verses. It wasn’t the scripture that was or is powerful. It is the truth the scripture communicates that has power. Thinking the truth is powerful.

I grant that the bible does not speak of ALL things. But to rarely have scripture to back up theories as opposed to scripture that refutes your theories suggests a great vulnerability.

I can put the scripture in quotes for you but I sometimes want to know how much Bible an opponent/friend has in their heads. Why? Because I want to know how much truth they believe.

(Aside: I am speaking in generalities)
When I comes to judgment of what is truth one relies on evidence. The bible is strong evidence of 'this' or 'that', lack of biblical evidence is weak evidence of 'this' or 'that'. The topics we are speaking about have biblical references, at least for my side of the argument IMO. The lack of evidence for your side of the same topic indicates weakness and possibly error IMO.

You have ignored the evidence you don’t like. You demand exact wording like “thou hast free will” or there is no free will despite the countless commands to choose and although no verse says “thou wast chosen for heaven before thou east born” you believe it. You are, I’m afraid, fooling your when you think you stand on scripture and consider it authoritative.

Ah, "the bible says God does not tempt man to sin". Now, that is a good verse for your side. Put it out there.
Aside1: I struggled with that verse myself ... I had an answer I think... I would have to ponder it again...

I wish you would. The alternative is to attribute evil to your Maker and this will not be helpful in seeing your prayers answered.

Aside2: consider Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil..... seems like a contradiction ... LOL.

Why? It is a contradiction for your position because you attribute ALL behaviour, man and Devil, tobe done at his command. Grant them free will and the problem is solved.

Aside3: (hmmm.... seems you just posted that Reformed theology takes individual verses out of content to make a point and that is a fault .... you possibly doing the same thing?

Point it out to me.

....smiles, just saying another aspect to think about
Time for lunch per the predetermined will of God ... or is it my free will ... hmmmm ?? If it taste lousy, probably the former.

Free stomach determines that one!! Guten appetit!!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sorry... didn't follow you ...may be my fault... forum messages and answers can be confusing

I am having troubles following post #678 ... sorry... I lost the context of what I was saying that you responded too.
I guess I need a break.
Hope you are still sleeping.


A lot of verses say IMO that it was God the reached in:

• Isaiah 26:12 Lord, You will establish peace for us, Since You have also performed for us all that we have done.

No question God interacts in human history. Does not by any means say He is controlling everything everyone does.
3Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee

WHO is He keeping in peace? Those he manipulates to think on him or those who decide to think on him?

• John 15:5 I am the Vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him bears much fruit, for [otherwise] apart from Me [that is, cut off from vital union with Me] you can do nothing.

You think this means we cannot literally do anything like tie our shoes or commit a crime unless God does it in us? Is this who you thinkGod is? He manipulated men to commit crimes he punished them for doing?

“Choose this day whom you will serve” Who is choosing, the speaker or the listener?

• Romans 8:13 for if you are living according to the [impulses of the] flesh, you are going to die. But if [you are living] by the [power of the Holy] Spirit you are habitually putting to death the sinful deeds of the body, you will [really] live forever.

If God is making them live by the flesh, what is the problem? You believe God is working in them to live by the flesh, right?

I could many more
... I would prefer the Spirit reaching in and fixing me rather than myself via free will as He would do a better job (not that this preference proves my premise)
Aside: I had a similar struggle IMO in one area

The scripture you paste tells you, not God, to “be habitually putting to death (active) the sinful deeds of the body” so why not let THAT scripture reach in and change you opening your eyes to see that YOU not He must do this? You quote it but then deny it. It tells YOU to do this. It does not tell God to do this for you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You are responsible when God say you are.
Premise 1: God say you are born in sin (verses supplied earlier and you never exegeted them differently)
Premise 2: Babies do not have knowledge of sin
Conclusion: Your statement is false

There is a place of accountability that each person has to arrive at, first, before sin is imputed to them: Romans 5:13

It is at that time in a person's life that God declares them to be responsible for the sin they commit. Calvinism says sin is imputed at conception/birth. Paul says it is imputed when they receive, and become responsible for, the knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[Fastfredy0]

The Devil quoted scripture to Jesus. How come Jesus didn’t then believe and obey the scripture quoted?

Jesus always obeys the tenants of scripture. Saying Jesus didn't obey scripture is a false premise.

The problem is you dismiss scripture that contradicts your position.

Statement without foundation. I can just as easily say, "The problem is Dorthy Mae dismisses scripture that contradicts her position". This gets us no where. I try to avoid unsupported conclusions that why I often present premises to back the conclusion. Now the syllogism may be incorrect, but at least I usually make a case for my assertions.

You think God does not consider the choices of man in full defiance of scripture.

The statement indicates a misunderstanding of my position because I do think God acts according to our choices.
Again, saying "in full defiance of scripture lacks foundation". I can just as easily say "Dorothy Mae thinks God does not consider the choices of man in full defiance of scripture". I think not to assign conclusions to you without foundation. I think I understand your position and how you draw conclusions from them. You don't seem to see the crux of the difference in our positions. I say God controls our desires which control our choices (example: to believe or not believe salvificly) and you think magical ( where 'magical' is cheap shot for dramatic effect :wink) Free Will controls our desires that lead to choices. I am of the impression you constantly skip the question of "what is the cause of our choices". You assume its got to be FREE WILL and continue from there. (aside: of course only you know what you think, but that is my analysis).

You dismiss scripture that clearly describes God doing what Calvin determined he doesn’t calling it an “anthropomorphic” (chaff) meaning that scripture isn’t true. So my impression is that scripture is not as authoritative in your position as you claim. Ones written to
correct your thinking are dismissed.

Well, again you are assuming you are correct. I presented premises to back up my ascertain that the particular scripture you presented is anthropomorphic. Instead of analyzing the premises and showing where they were wrong you again assumed you were right and make silly statements like "Fastfredy0 dismisses scripture". You know that's not what I think. You are lazy and don't analyze my reasoning or supply your own to counter my ideas.
Premise 1: Isaiah 1:66 Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool"
premise 2: Dorothy Mae does not believe in anthropomorphism in scripture
Conclusion: Dorothy Mae thinks the earth is actually a literal foot stool
Now, I personally think premise 2 is wrong. I think you conveniently dismiss a verse as being anthropomorphic when it does fit the point you're making. Maybe, the verse isn't anthropomorphic and maybe it is. AGAIN, I was the one who gave reasons to show the verse is anthropomorphic and you didn't. Doesn't make me right, at least one of us (me) presented evidence.

But Calvin IGNORES the scriptures that don’t fit his prechosen theology as do you.

Again, conclusions without evidence.
Dorothy Mae IGNORES the scripture that don fit her prechosen theology. This isn't getting us anywhere.

I will ask my husband but a lack of books doesn’t say the ones you like represent God accurately.

Agreed. God gave teachers (teachers teach others) ...teachers write books ... people read books to learn from experts ... there are false teachers ... WHAT IS TRUTH?
.... you also rely on teachers to understand God. You rely on them to create the canon. You rely on them to translate from the Hebrew and Greek. Ninety percent (arbitrary number) of your biblical belief is reliant on trust in the conveyance of truth by teachers. Now, I can say that these guys that determined canon from various scraps of parchment representing copies of the originals, where the earliest ones were copied a 100 years after the origninal and translated into English is highly suspect and don't represent GOD accurately ... anyways
I believe that God (not man via his free will) caused the bible to be 99% accurate (I could explain the 99% instead of 100% but don't want to go on that tangent) and passed scripture accurately down the ages to us.
I believe men are fallible and 'screw up' the understanding of scripture at times. But, I think it is a vastly inferior method to understand God by only reading the bible as presented and ignore God given teachers who have systematized the bible. One should be like the Berean's who said basicly: Trust but Verify (or was that Regan) (smile)
I am proudly a Berean.

You do realize we are talking about a PERSON not clinical chemistry, right?

AH, what ... Calvin is a person? .... say it's not so ... lol (sarcasm and possible frustration noted)
Aside: My biblical understanding is based on the Bible. I also consider the thoughts of others as God provided teachers which implicitly implies a resource to be considered. I am a Berean.

Thinking the truth is powerful.

Agreed. The Bible is the ultimate truth. The Spirit grants understanding to individuals in varying degrees. A wise man understands that his understanding is flawed to some degree.... Proverbs 15:22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established ... who has counselled you?
Again, I grant there a false teachers... so be a Berean.

You are, I’m afraid, fooling your when you think you stand on scripture and consider it authoritative.

Well one of us is fooling themself.
Ben Shapiro - What you want to believe you tend to believe and you tend to look for excuses to believe it.




Fastfredy0 said:

• John 15:5 I am the Vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him bears much fruit, for [otherwise] apart from Me [that is, cut off from vital union with Me] you can do nothing.

You think this means we cannot literally do anything like tie our shoes or commit a crime unless God does it in us?

No, there are other verses saying one cannot tie up their shoes if God doesn't empower it. I'll give you my verse(2) after you give me a verse saying God has nothing to do with you tying up your shoes. (Getting tired of presenting scripture to back up my proposals and you not doing so.)
John 15:5 speaks of the necessity of God to enable our sanctification. It does not address the tying of shoes.

“Choose this day whom you will serve” Who is choosing, the speaker or the listener?

The listener.
Your question strongly indicates you still do not understand my side of the argument. I explained it many times... going to be lazy and not repeat it. (Aside: as long as you don't understand the crux of my side of the argument, we are wasting time to a degree.
hint: what is the metaphysical reason one chooses?

 

[Fastfredy0]

If God is making them live by the flesh, what is the problem? You believe God is working in them to live by the flesh, right?

I don't agree to the 1st premise and the 2nd.
Romans 7:18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh [my human nature, my worldliness—my sinful capacity]. .... 24 Wretched and miserable man that I am! Who will [rescue me and] set me free from this body of death [this corrupt, mortal existence]? 25 Thanks be to God [for my deliverance] through Jesus Christ our Lord! AMP
Premise 1: nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh
Premise 2: Thanks be to God [for my deliverance] through Jesus Christ
Conclusion: God causing Paul to obey, he's not capable of doing so

God causing:
John 6:28 Then they asked Him, “What are we to do, so that we may habitually be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe
God causing:
John 15:5 I am the Vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him bears much fruit, for [otherwise] apart from Me [that is, cut off from vital union with Me] you can do nothing.
God causing:
Romans 12:6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
God causing:
1 Corinthians 4:7 For who regards you as superior or what sets you apart as special? What do you have that you did not receive [from another]? And if in fact you received it [from God or someone else], why do you boast as if you had not received it [but had gained it by yourself]?
Free Will Causing ????????? .... just because you made a choice does not mean you were the cause of that choice. There is NO VERSES saying a person was the cause of anything in which God wasn't the ultimate cause save misinterpreted anthropomorphisms which can be show to be anthropomorphic as they contradict other verses if taken literally...NOT ONE!
All right then... I have to apply my expertise to the reality TV show in which a man selects his future wife from among 30ish beautiful women .... I am telling him God is the cause of his selection and the bachelor insists he selects his future bride based on his 'free will', said will not created by God but created in the neither world by the unknown. (Sarcasm)
Too lazy to proof read....excuse errors.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That's your private interpretation. I can't find anyone that agrees with you. You didn't bother to exegete my verses to show how they indicated we are born sinful is the incorrect interpretation. I can multiple verses as more evidence to show we are born sinful .

I'll exegete your verse showing it has nothing to do with disproving we are born in sin:

Paul was relatively "alive apart from the Law." No one is ever completely unrelated to or unaffected by it. However, in his past, Paul had lived unaware of the Law's true demands and was therefore self-righteous (cf. Phil. 3:6). His pre-conversion struggles were mainly intellectual (e.g., Was Jesus the Messiah?) rather than moral.

"Saul of Tarsus could have headed the Spanish Inquisition, and have had no qualms of conscience!"[466]

When the commandment entered Paul's consciousness, it aroused sin, and he died, in the sense that he became aware of his spiritual deadness. This is true of everyone. Paul was not speaking of His union with Christ in death here but of his moment of recognition of his unsaved condition.

"Sin at first is there, but dormant; not until it has the help of the Law does it become an active power of mischief."
Tom Constable

_______________________________
For I -- The “I” is emphatic. Is the apostles here referring to his own past experience? Or is he speaking the sentiment of all who are unconverted, and who are depending on their own righteousness?


was alive once -- When he with confidence thought himself righteous, and doing-right.


Paul describes a figurative existence in which a person is unaware of sin and undisturbed by condemnation from the law. This might refer to Paul’s own experience before becoming a Christian - FSB


Subjectively he was “alive;” unconscious of resistance to God, and alienation from Him, and condemnation. - CBSC


without the law -- Was Paul ever really without the Law of Moses? Or is he referring to a time before he came of age and the Law applied to him in its spiritual meaning and with understanding.


but when the commandment came -- When, Paul or the generic person he is speaking of, intelligently understood the Law and its application to his heart and conscience. It is not referring to the time before Sinai where the Law was given.


sin revived -- Lived again. This means that it was before dormant Romans 7:8, but was now quickened into new life. The word is usually applied to a renewal of life, Romans 14:19; Luke 15:24, Luke 15:32, but here it means substantially the same as the expression in Romans 7:8,


and I died -- That is, I was by it involved in additional guilt and misery. It stands opposed to “I was alive,” and must mean the opposite of that; and evidently denotes that the effect of the commandment was to bring him under what he calls death, (compare Romans 5:12, Romans 5:14-15;) that is, sin reigned, and raged, and produced its withering and condemning effects; it led to aggravated guilt and misery. - BN


The essential idea here is, that the Law did not answer the purpose which the Jew would claim for it, to sanctify the soul and to give comfort, but that all its influence on the heart was to produce aggravated, unpardoned guilt and woe. - BN


He realized his deadness, spiritually; that all his religious credentials and accomplishments were rubbish (Philippians 3:7-8). - MSB
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gbc/romans-7.html

Yeah, I know you have your own private interpretation which is the correct one in your mind. You won't find anyone that agrees with your interpretation IMO.

Here's my private interpretation:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ...)
Romans 5:13 KJV

Calvinism says sin is imputed at conception/birth.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Calvinism says sin is imputed at conception/birth.

True. Calvinism and the bible are in agreement on this point. Calvinism is an excellent though fallible introspection of scripture to facilitate man's understanding of truth. You gave one of a myriad of examples. Thank you