Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Fallen man

JM

Member
"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." WCF and the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

Gen. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The penalty for disobedience of God’s command was death.

Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Adam’s disobedience brought in the fail of mankind.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death [death of the body] by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Eph. 2:1 And you hath he quickened[made alive], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Col 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened[made alive] together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

+++The word dead is nekros and is defined by Strong’s as, "one that has breathed his last, lifeless." The Augustinian and Federal view understands sin to be imputed to human kind because of Adam’s sin, resulting in the spiritual bankruptcy of all people. This idea finds expressed by David in the following passges.

Psalm 51:5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Pslam 58:3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

We are born in sin, it’s for this reason our Lord Jesus Christ tells us we need to be born again to enter God’s kingdom. Also note, Christ’s words in John 3:3, "he cannot see." This is in direct relation to the kingdom of God, one must be born again to even see the offer.

John 3: 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

+++Ask yourself, can the carnal fleshy man bring about spiritual change? Not according to Christ’s words, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Amen.

The heart of fallen man as a result of the fall:

Gen. 6:5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen. 8:21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Ecc. 9:3This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Jer. 17: 9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Mark 7:21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

John 3: 19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [This point is important for those who believe man desires to be saved, they don’t. Men are slaves to sin and love to sin, they harden their hearts to the Gospel offer for the reason stated above.]

Rom. 8: 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: [The fallen mind of man is hostile toward God.] for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Cor. 2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [The fallen man cannot discern spiritual things, as was pointed out above.]

Eph. 4: 17This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: [And what is the reason for their blindness? Vanity of their mind, the understanding was darkened.] 19Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Eph. 5: 8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Titus 1:15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Before God enables fallen man to respond, we belong to the Devil:

John 8:10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

John 8: 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Rom. 6: 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Eph. 2: 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

2 Tim. 2: 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Titus 3: 3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

1 John 3: 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

1 John 5: 19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

All are sinners:

2 Chronicles 6: 36If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

1 Kings 8: 46If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

Job 15: 14What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? 15Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. 16How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Psalm 130: 3If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?

Psalm 143: 2And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Proverbs 20: 9Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

Ecclesiastes 7: 20For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Isaiah 64:5Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.

Isaiah 53: 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Romans 3: 9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

James 3: 2For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. 3Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. 4Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth. 5Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! 6And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. 7For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: 8But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

1 John 1: 8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

If man is left dead in sin, they are unable to repent:

Job 14: 4Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. [and that is essentially what the Arminian claims to do.]
Jeremiah 13: 23Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. [The evil cannot change.]

Matthew 7: 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 12: 33Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

John 6: 44 [This is a classic passge.] NO man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. [Those and only those who are called will be raised up. This passage is also teahing that being raised up is a fact. If all are called, then all are raised up. Man’s inability to choice the good, the spiritual is because of their nature. God the Father must call them.]

John 6: 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. [Notice, ‘except.’ This is in reference to man’s inability.]

Our sufficiency is from God:

1 Cor. 2: 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God [which is why these topics are to be discussed with brethren and not the world.]: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 4: 7For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

2 Cor. 3: 5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
Faith and repentance are gifts from God:

Acts 5: 31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 11:18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Acts 13: 48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life BELIEVED. [They believed because God granted them belief.]

Acts 16: 14And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, [God did it, not Lydia.] that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Acts 18: 27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

Ephesians 2 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. [Dictionary.com defines work as, "Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something." Work is something you do, if that’s true, then believing in the Gospel is an activity to accomplish your salvation.]

Philippians 1: 29For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, [It was given to them to believe.] but also to suffer for his sake;

2 Timothy 2: 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

______________________________________________________________

As you can see, God doesn't think so highly of fallen man, and in closing read the words of Romans:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

God bless,

jm
 
Hi JM:

This is a challenging topic and I suspect that you might agree that the truth about this matter is not particularly obvious - I know thoughtful people on both sides of the Arminian / Calvinist issue.

If I could sum up my response to your post in a single sentence, it would be something like this: "You certainly have provided material that is consistent with the view that man cannot perform an act of free will acceptance (of salvation), but the material you have provided in no way refutes the plausibility of an Arminian viewpoint."

Here again, I will underscore the notion that the same text can be consistent with different positions. Obviously, the Arminians and the Calvinists cannot both be correct, but to provide texts that are simply consistent with one position does no real work to rule out or discredit the other position.

Let me respond to one of your points in this post (I will probably respond to other material in later posts - I want to keep the posts manageable)

Regarding your conclusions about the meaning of "dead" being "lifeless" in regard to texts like Eph 2:1: You seem to think that being "dead in sin" means that one is rendered utterly and totally dead - incapable of any act, especially an act of free will acceptance of salvation. And yet we know from the facts of everyday life that the unredeemed are not cognitively dead - they walk around, make decisions, and live their lives - they are obviously not dead in the sense that I think your view requires. So you have not really made a case that any "free will" decision faculty has been rendered "dead" or inoperative.

In Ephesians 2:1 we have reference to being "quickened" (made alive) from a state of being "dead in trespasses". I think the that verses 2 and 3 essentially prove that being "dead in trespasses" does not connote a state where one has lost cognitive or even free will capability. I know that you bolded the phrase "by nature children of wrath". What if I bolded as follows:

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Just like you quoted a definition for "dead", I could quote a definition for "disobedience" that entails the notion of an act of free will. I suggest that the very concept of disobedience entails the assumption of free will choice. No one would ever say that I disobeyed a command if I did not have the free capability to comply with it.

The point being that the texts you quote do no damage to the Arminian position on free will - they are also consistent with a Calvinist view, but this is not enough.

Your seeming insistence that "dead" means "totally coginitively dead" also seems to ignore the possibility of metaphorical usages of the word "dead". I think the expression "dead in sin" is indeed a kind of "dead" but it might not be "full on dead".

The scriptures are chock full of commands ("do this...") and admonishments to make choices ("choose this day...."). To me this is powerful evidence in support of a free will faculty. It would be simply meaningless to have these statements if the reader does not have a degree of freedom to choose his course of action.

Having these commands and admonitions in the absence of a free will capacity is like having commands and admonitions to protons and neturons to obey the laws of physics. People would laugh at this, pointing out that protons and neutrons do not have "choice', so it would be non-sensical to "command" them to do anything.

Same principle here - if we are truly incapable of choosing a path, it is non-sensical to give us commands and admonitions. And yet the Scriptures are full of such things.
 
Well Drew, I’ll have to ask you to present your case, on what it means for man to be ‘fallen’ or ‘dead in sin.’ I’ll have to insist that you start from the Bible and not philosophy [nothing wrong with Biblical philosophy], I must insist because you’re starting from a philosophical viewpoint rather then a Biblical. In your reply only once was Scripture quoted with your understanding of that passage, but you failed to offer a Biblical reason/support for that belief. You placed in bold the word “disobedience,†which I linked directly to the fallen state of man; you didn’t qualify you reasoning with Biblical support. You then placed in bold a section of one sentence, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind†which I totally agree with. This in no way changes my point, fallen sinful man wants/wills to fulfill his own lusts, after the carnal flesh. I didn’t deny freewill in my op, but have claimed the will of man is determined by his nature…this nature [as my case with Biblical support shows] is fallen and hostile to God. God commands all men everywhere to repent, God also commands man to love Him with all of our hearts, but as I quoted before no man is able. My reasoning is founded on Biblical evidence offered. Merely quoting a command doesn’t make man able to follow that command. Remember the drunk who gets into a car wreck and then claims it wasn’t his fault because he was UNABLE to drive due to his drunken state? Do we let him off because he was drunk? It’s the same with the sinner. We are guilty because we will to sin, that will is determined by our nature, which is fallen.

There comes in a discussion where we have to ask, “where is this going?†I see your arguments and denials but they’re not rebuttals to my exegesis, but philosophical musings and you’re unable to give a statement of what you believe on these passages without returning to your musings. Following the advice of another, I’ll break off conversation with you for now, maybe someone else would be willing to chase your pseudo arguments in circles, I think I made my case…unless you’d like to defined what you believe? Wink, wink.

See you around.
 
Hi JM:

I have never really claimed that I am prepared to present a Biblical case for Arminianism. I am really only critiquing arguments for the Calvinist position. This is a very difficult issue, so patience is needed on all sides.

I sense that you are a little uncomfortable with you call philosophy and think that I really on it "too much". Well, as stated above, I have not yet begun to actively defend an Arminian position. My posts are "philosiphical" precisely because I believe that your posts draw "unjustified" conclusions. In order to express my concerns about the nature of your argument, I really have no choice but to use "philosophical" terms.

For example, I point out that your argument about us being "dead" and therefore unable to "grab to rope" of salvation is not justified, precisely because you have yet to explain why "dead in sin" necessitates an inability to undertake free will acts. Your argument as expressed in your OP seems to be:

1. We are "dead in sin"
2. Dead = "breathed his last, lifeless.
3. Therefore we do not have the free will ability to accept salvation (since they are dead and dead people can do nothing)

You simply cannot expect me to refrain from critiquing the flaws in this argument using the principles of sound argumentation (what you refer to as "philosophical musings"). I quite legitimately point out that "dead" cannot really mean totally and utterly lifeless, since the unredeemed who walk around are clearly not completely dead. The term "dead" must mean something else. So it is very much an open question what "dead" means when it is said that we are "dead in sin".

Quite naturally you may say "Of course, people who are 'dead in sin' are not completely dead - as you say, they walk around and make decisions". Fair enough. But you need to defend why "dead in sin" takes away my free will - it clearly does not take everything away. You need to explain why the faculty of free is specifically included in set of those things that have "died" Or, you need to argue why free will does not exist.

I would think that if I were in your shoes, I would not expect that the OP "makes the case". After all, people have struggled with this for centuries - it is not likely that you are going to make a slam-dunk case for Calvinism (or even a part of it) in a single post.

To be fair to you, it is you that have bitten off the bigger challenge - trying to make a case for Calvinism. If I ever get around to making an actual case for Arminianism, the shoe will be on the other foot.

I intend to make more related posts.
 
JM said:
I didn’t deny freewill in my op, but have claimed the will of man is determined by his nature…this nature [as my case with Biblical support shows] is fallen and hostile to God.....We are guilty because we will to sin, that will is determined by our nature, which is fallen.
This seems to be an example of wanting it both ways. In order for my will to be truly free in respect to deciding between A and B, it simply cannot be the case that I have an inherent nature that inexorably compels me towards one or the other. The very meaning of the phrase "free will" does not allow for this. A person whose "nature" (and I presume that you believe we are born with this nature) is such that he must do "X" most certainly does not possess free will in respect to "X".
 
Drew wrote:
Regarding your conclusions about the meaning of "dead" being "lifeless" in regard to texts like Eph 2:1: You seem to think that being "dead in sin" means that one is rendered utterly and totally dead - incapable of any act, especially an act of free will acceptance of salvation.

Drew, you highlighted "any act", but this was never Jason's point in His first post. I would have said it like this...

"Regarding your conclusions about the meaning of "dead" being "lifeless" in regard to texts like Eph 2:1: You seem to think that being "dead in sin" means that one is rendered utterly and totally incapable of free will acceptance of salvation."

This would be consistent with the point that Jason was making. Yet your argument seems to be against your "any act", and not the point originally made by Jason in his first post...

Drew wrote:
And yet we know from the facts of everyday life that the unredeemed are not cognitively dead - they walk around, make decisions, and live their lives - they are obviously not dead in the sense that I think your view requires. So you have not really made a case that any "free will" decision faculty has been rendered "dead" or inoperative.

...and you go on to build a case against that straw man.

To paraphrase Spurgeon, you are railing at fictions that, accept in your own mind, never existed.

Drew wrote:
But you need to defend why "dead in sin" takes away my free will - it clearly does not take everything away. You need to explain why the faculty of free is specifically included in set of those things that have "died" Or, you need to argue why free will does not exist.

This is what Jason did in the first post, step by step, but you must separate "any act" from the point that Jason was making.

This seems to be an example of wanting it both ways. In order for my will to be truly free in respect to deciding between A and B, it simply cannot be the case that I have an inherent nature that inexorably compels me towards one or the other. The very meaning of the phrase "free will" does not allow for this. A person whose "nature" (and I presume that you believe we are born with this nature) is such that he must do "X" most certainly does not possess free will in respect to "X".

Drew, this "truly free" will that you strive to defend never existed. Your philosophical viewpoints are grounded in error. I think that we went over this already on the compatibilism thread.

Dave
 
JM said:
Well Drew, I’ll have to ask you to present your case, on what it means for man to be ‘fallen’ or ‘dead in sin.’ I’ll have to insist that you start from the Bible and not philosophy [nothing wrong with Biblical philosophy]
In this post, I will simply state my position about the so-called "sin nature" and then I will provide a small amount of Biblical support for my position (this Biblical support is just a starting point, but I provide in the spirit of responding to your request (above). I realize that this is just a part of what you have asked for - it is not intended to be any kind of a completed case.

I believe that all men are born with a nature that is subject to temptation, not a nature that ensures that sin will occur - we have a weakness that makes us subject to temptation. Men do not have a "sin nature" of a kind where sin is absolutely guaranteed. No one is born with an evil disposition. The overwhelming majority of people give in to these temptations (doing so "freely") to the point where sinning becomes habitual.

Consider this Biblical text (Job 1:1)

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

To me this suggests Job did not have a "natural" inclination to evil, but rather an inclination towards obeying God.

Now, I fully expect that you will say that Job's sinful nature was, at some point in his life, transformed by God and that he was indeed born with a sinful nature. This would render this text consistent with the "all men are born with a sinful" position. You will probably cite other texts to justify this. Fair enough. A heads up, though. I think there is an element of circularity in such an argument. To make the case for such circularity is beyond the scope of this post. I hope to address it later.

The beginnings (and beginnings only) of another Biblical argument to defend the position that I hold is as follows. Consider Romans 1:3

"concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David (B)according to the flesh"

The word flesh here is based on the Greek word "σαρχ". So clearly the word σαρχ cannot refer to a nature that must sin, because Jesus clearly did not sin. Someone (whose credentials I cannot vouch for) has asserted that much of the oomph behind the "sin nature" position lies in interpreting the Greek word σαρχ as describing a "sin nature that cannot be resisted successfully" (which could not be justifified since Jesus is described as possessing that nature).

I suggest that we do not sin because of a sin nature, but rather that we sin because we freely submit to our "σαρχ" - that part of us that is subject to temptation.

Some of the above material is based on (not copied, but based on) material posted by "craigbythesea" over at baptistboard.com. I hope that I have not misrepresented his views
 
Dave... said:
Drew wrote:
Regarding your conclusions about the meaning of "dead" being "lifeless" in regard to texts like Eph 2:1: You seem to think that being "dead in sin" means that one is rendered utterly and totally dead - incapable of any act, especially an act of free will acceptance of salvation.

Drew, you highlighted "any act", but this was never Jason's point in His first post. I would have said it like this...

"Regarding your conclusions about the meaning of "dead" being "lifeless" in regard to texts like Eph 2:1: You seem to think that being "dead in sin" means that one is rendered utterly and totally incapable of free will acceptance of salvation."

This would be consistent with the point that Jason was making. Yet your argument seems to be against your "any act", and not the point originally made by Jason in his first post...

Drew wrote:
[quote:0172c] And yet we know from the facts of everyday life that the unredeemed are not cognitively dead - they walk around, make decisions, and live their lives - they are obviously not dead in the sense that I think your view requires. So you have not really made a case that any "free will" decision faculty has been rendered "dead" or inoperative.

...and you go on to build a case against that straw man.

To paraphrase Spurgeon, you are railing at fictions that, accept in your own mind, never existed.[/quote:0172c]
Let's be careful here. I admit that I may have over-stated JM's belief about what "dead" means. I agree with your version as provided above. I am not sure that JM was clear about what he meant, but that is a side issue.

My argument is only problematic because of my mis-interpretation of what Jason meant. However, even with the new version there is a problem. He still needs to show that being "dead in sin" necessitates an inability to undertake a free will act. We cannot be expected to see this as self-evidently true. He needs to justify why the scope of "that which is dead" includes the faculty of free will (or argue against the existence of free will).

To give a flavour of where I am coming from: I might be "dead in my ignorance of quantum mechanics (QM)" - I may be completely unable to understand QM without help from the outside (say, God). However, it at least seems plausible that I could still have a "free will" faculty that decides to accept God's gift of knowledge about QM. I may not understand QM, but I can know that I am ignorant of it, and freely choose to accept a miraculous quickening of my faculties in respect to QM.

There are some very subtle issues that I hope to return to....
 
Dave... said:
This seems to be an example of wanting it both ways. In order for my will to be truly free in respect to deciding between A and B, it simply cannot be the case that I have an inherent nature that inexorably compels me towards one or the other. The very meaning of the phrase "free will" does not allow for this. A person whose "nature" (and I presume that you believe we are born with this nature) is such that he must do "X" most certainly does not possess free will in respect to "X".

Drew, this "truly free" will that you strive to defend never existed. Your philosophical viewpoints are grounded in error. I think that we went over this already on the compatibilism thread.

Dave
Begs the question by presuming the non-existence of free will. You may believe that your arguments in the compatibilism thread were convincing. I would humbly beg to differ.
 
The following text and comments appeared in JM's OP, under the heading "If man is left dead in sin, they are unable to repent"

John 6: 44 [This is a classic passge.] NO man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. [Those and only those who are called will be raised up. This passage is also teahing that being raised up is a fact. If all are called, then all are raised up. Man’s inability to choice the good, the spiritual is because of their nature. God the Father must call them.]

I suggest that this text does not require an interpretation to the effect that man is "unable" to respond to God's offer of salvation.

JM claims that if someone (let's say, Fred) is callled, he will be raised up - that a person who is called will, without question, be raised up. If this assertion were correct, then JM would indeed be justified in concluding that if all are called, then all would be raised up. And we all agree that not all will be raised up.

How can the initial assertion be justified? On a direct, literal, reading JM seems to be justified - the text clearly says that a man must be drawn in order to come, and then the next clause clearly states that this same man will be raised up. In order for my (Drew's) "theory" to hold up, the real meaning of the text has to be as follows:

"NO man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him (who takes the additional step of accepting the gift) up at the last day."

One might object that this is an unjustified addtional qualification. And if we knew that individual snippets of Scriptures always "stood on their own" without implied qualifications, the objection would be valid.

However, the Calvinist engages in the very same strategy of adding qualification to alter the "plain reading" of various texts. This is done whenever a text is cited whose plain reading suggests an ability to choose the gift of salvation.

Consider Revelation 3:20

20'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

A plain reading of this texts suggest choice in respect to accepting the gift of salvation. This whole metaphor strongly suggests that Christ's "dining" with man" is contingent upon a free will act of opening the door (I think this text is talking specifically about salvation - perhaps the Calvinist will disagree). In order to render this text consistent with a Calvinist position, an additional qualifier has to be added to the text - namely that the person has to be "enabled" by God to even hear the knock and open the door.

I submit that the Calvinist will argue that this is justified, given other texts. Fine. But in so doing, he cannot demand that other texts (such as John 6:44) be granted immunity from the addition of qualifiers that are derived from other scriptural texts.
 
JM said:
"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." WCF and the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689




Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." (Matthew 11:20-24 NIV)


The words of Jesus, quoted above, obviously assume that people have the ability to repent and turn to God. How else would his words make any sense?

Why go off on a rant, if the people never had the ability to repent in the first place? Did Jesus perform miracles for people who couldn't repent, and then get angry with them because they didn't respond? How much of an idiot would that make Jesus? It would be like trying to teach a horse to speak english, and then getting angry and going off on a rant when it fails!

Jesus says-

If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago

As I read it, Jesus is saying that the miracles he performed should have been enough to get the people to repent. And this requires that they have the ability to turn to God. If they don't have that ability, then the showing of miracles is irrelevant.
 
Drew wrote:
He (Jason) still needs to show that being "dead in sin" necessitates an inability to undertake a free will act. We cannot be expected to see this as self-evidently true. He needs to justify why the scope of "that which is dead" includes the faculty of free will (or argue against the existence of free will).

Drew, isn't that what he did in his first post? At what point in time do you begin to trust what scripture teaches? I'm not saying that it's wrong to test how the scripture is being used, but somewhere down the line you need to start trusting in something that is clearly stated in scripture.

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."--2 Timothy 1:9.

Drew wrote:
To give a flavour of where I am coming from: I might be "dead in my ignorance of quantum mechanics (QM)" - I may be completely unable to understand QM without help from the outside (say, God). However, it at least seems plausible that I could still have a "free will" faculty that decides to accept God's gift of knowledge about QM. I may not understand QM, but I can know that I am ignorant of it, and freely choose to accept a miraculous quickening of my faculties in respect to QM.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge--

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; And again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

Why must we become a fool that we may become wise?

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer [those who were adept at arguing philosophy]of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

"concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David (B)according to the flesh"

The word flesh here is based on the Greek word "σαρχ". So clearly the word σαρχ cannot refer to a nature that must sin, because Jesus clearly did not sin. Someone (whose credentials I cannot vouch for) has asserted that much of the oomph behind the "sin nature" position lies in interpreting the Greek word σαρχ as describing a "sin nature that cannot be resisted successfully" (which could not be justifified since Jesus is described as possessing that nature).

Drew, I think that Romans 1:3 has to do with lineage, hence the reason we read "descendant of David" and "according to the flesh".

Again, you are building straw men then burning them down to make your argument.
 
Dave... said:
Drew, isn't that what he did in his first post? At what point in time do you begin to trust what scripture teaches? I'm not saying that it's wrong to test how the scripture is being used, but somewhere down the line you need to start trusting in something that is clearly stated in scripture.


Consider the example I have just given. If we do not have the ability to make a free choice and turn to God, wouldn't it make Jesus a bit of an idiot for behaving in the way described? (Denouncing people for not responding to the miracles he performed.)
 
The same Jesus that said this?

John 10:26-27 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Why didn't Jesus say 'you are not of My sheep because you don't believe...everyone hears My voice, but my sheep believe'?

See the difference?

Why did Paul ask these questions...

Romans 9
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?...

...Certainly not!

For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.


You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,"

That's what this is really all about, isn't it?

Dave
 
Dave... said:
Drew wrote:
He (Jason) still needs to show that being "dead in sin" necessitates an inability to undertake a free will act. We cannot be expected to see this as self-evidently true. He needs to justify why the scope of "that which is dead" includes the faculty of free will (or argue against the existence of free will).

Drew, isn't that what he did in his first post? At what point in time do you begin to trust what scripture teaches? I'm not saying that it's wrong to test how the scripture is being used, but somewhere down the line you need to start trusting in something that is clearly stated in scripture.

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."--2 Timothy 1:9.
Where did JM do make this case in his first post - I have read it several times. Please point me to the relevant material. If you think that the 2 Timothy quote makes this case, I would like to hear your reasoning. This text simply does not require the absence of a free will capacity. I reason as follows:

- I agree with you guys that we must be called, but I differ in that I believe that all are called (God desires all to be saved). Where does this text rule that out?

- I agree that we are not saved by works as the text says. I think that it is entirely reasonable to say that an act of free will acceptance is not a work. What about Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees re picking grains on the Sabbath. Not every human activity is "work". And even if free will acceptance is work, it seems like you are arguing that the 0.00001 % contribution of the human to the whole process makes it untrue that salvation is essentially the work of God. This is like saying that the theory of relativity is the work of Fritz the librarian, just because he played the role of letting Dr. Einstein into the library to do his reading and thinking. I have strong doubts that the writers of scripture intended for a such a "highly technical" analysis to be done.

- I think you are implying that the reference to "before the world began" suggests that our salvation was "determined" before we even came into existence, so how can it be the result of a free will act. This text is not precise - it is entirely consistent with an interpretation that the general plan was established (including the sacrifcial gift of Jesus) before the world began.

As far as "trusting in something that is clearly stated in scripture", I think this obviously begs the question. If I thought that the words I read in scripture were uniquely interpretable according to your view, of course I would share your view.

An overall statement: These texts that you and JM deploy are not sufficiently precise and unambiguous in meaning to justify a "Calvinist to the exclusion of Arminian" reading in respect to the matter of free will. These texts are all consistent with a Calvinist construal but they remain somewhat "open" - other interpretations work with them as well.
 
Dave... said:
Drew wrote:
To give a flavour of where I am coming from: I might be "dead in my ignorance of quantum mechanics (QM)" - I may be completely unable to understand QM without help from the outside (say, God). However, it at least seems plausible that I could still have a "free will" faculty that decides to accept God's gift of knowledge about QM. I may not understand QM, but I can know that I am ignorant of it, and freely choose to accept a miraculous quickening of my faculties in respect to QM.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge--

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; And again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

Why must we become a fool that we may become wise?

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer [those who were adept at arguing philosophy]of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe
I am surprised that you would adopt such a strategy. If I (or anyone) thinks precisely and carefully about a matter and presents sound argument, there is always the "vain philosophy" card to play in response. What would you expect me and other to do? Respond by saying "Of course, I must be a fool - why did I bother with all thinking and analysis. If only someone had told me that thinking was a waste of time, I could have been about more important matters?"

Whether true or not, using this strategy gives readers the impression that your actual case is not going all that well. Besides, it is a convenient myth to imply that your own reasoning is somehow above the taint of "profance and idle babblings". Everyone uses reason and deduction and principles of logic in their thinking - Calvinist and Arminian alike.
 
Dave... said:
Drew said:
The word flesh here is based on the Greek word "σαρχ". So clearly the word σαρχ cannot refer to a nature that must sin, because Jesus clearly did not sin. Someone (whose credentials I cannot vouch for) has asserted that much of the oomph behind the "sin nature" position lies in interpreting the Greek word σαρχ as describing a "sin nature that cannot be resisted successfully" (which could not be justifified since Jesus is described as possessing that nature).

Drew, I think that Romans 1:3 has to do with lineage, hence the reason we read "descendant of David" and "according to the flesh".

Again, you are building straw men then burning them down to make your argument.
I would have thought that the intent of this verse is quite open. You could be right - the phrase "according to the flesh" might be a figure of speech expressing the thought "I am talking about lineage here". But it could also be a statement about Jesus "nature" - some kind of statement to the effect that he shares something "fleshly" with other human beings.

Again, it is simply overly simplistic to resolve such ambiguities in one's favour without some kind of explanation (and I am guilty of this as well - I assumed the text was making some kind of statement about Jesus' nature).
 
Where did JM do make this case in his first post - I have read it several times. Please point me to the relevant material. If you think that the 2 Timothy quote makes this case, I would like to hear your reasoning. This text simply does not require the absence of a free will capacity. I reason as follows:

I think that he gave you the basics to start the discussion. Generally, I would prefer to start that way and begin defining scripture with scripture. That is in no way an exhaustive list. Also, at least when I post scripture, i'm always aware of the context of what God has shown me in the Bible as a whole and also looking for more. So those verses may speak louder to some than others, based on their knowledge of scripture as a whole.

- I agree with you guys that we must be called, but I differ in that I believe that all are called (God desires all to be saved). Where does this text rule that out?

All are called in a general way, but there is an inner call to the elect, that would be the ones who were chosen. these are all deep topics on their own, but it does all piece together.

- I agree that we are not saved by works as the text says. I think that it is entirely reasonable to say that an act of free will acceptance is not a work.

Think of works in two categories...

Bad tree/bad works. Those works are done in the flesh (apart from God's Grace) and the motives are always corrupt.

Good tree/good works. These works are done under Grace. They are a gift from God through Grace and are always a result of His grace, not the cause of it.

Now, neither of these produce justification, but the good works will be an evidence of a true faith.

What about Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees re picking grains on the Sabbath.

I don't think that justification was the issue here, just obedience. Consider though: the Jews wrongly thought that they were justified by works)

Not every human activity is "work". And even if free will acceptance is work, it seems like you are arguing that the 0.00001 % contribution of the human to the whole process makes it untrue that salvation is essentially the work of God.

0.00001% of a filthy rag does not offer anything. If all we had to produce was 0.00001% of our justification, we would all fail by...you guessed it...0.00001%. God has a plan, and He wants us to be a part in it, but the end is still sure.

- I think you are implying that the reference to "before the world began" suggests that our salvation was "determined" before we even came into existence, so how can it be the result of a free will act. This text is not precise - it is entirely consistent with an interpretation that the general plan was established (including the sacrifcial gift of Jesus) before the world began.

Exactly. Here's a few more.

Ephesians 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

As far as "trusting in something that is clearly stated in scripture", I think this obviously begs the question. If I thought that the words I read in scripture were uniquely interpretable according to your view, of course I would share your view.

I guess the point was that you seem to be forming your doctrines because you don't like what scripture says. In other words, you seem to be forming your doctrines from your counter views, in stead of scripture that at least suggest your point in a simple positive way.

Gotta log out.
 
Dave... said:
I guess the point was that you seem to be forming your doctrines because you don't like what scripture says. In other words, you seem to be forming your doctrines from your counter views, in stead of scripture that at least suggest your point in a simple positive way.
I am mystified that you would deploying such an obviously question-begging statement. The very matter under discussion is what the scripture is really saying. One cannot (if one wants to engage in reasonable discourse) simply dismiss another's arguments with such a claim - that I don't "like" what the Scriptures are so obviously saying. If it is so obvious, then there should be holes in my counter-arguments. So please point them out. The rest of your post does not seem to seriously engage what I have said. I am not saying you are saying nothing of consequence, just that you are not speaking to the issues that I have raised.

You need to show what is wrong with my counter-arguments. If no substantive "counter to my counter" is forthcoming.....well people will draw the rather obvious conclusion.

As the for the lack of a "positive Biblical case", that may be forthcoming if time permits. But readers should not be decieved, progress toward truth is indeed made when someone points out the shaky foundations of a position that he disagrees with. That person is not required to advance an alternative in order to advance the state of knowledge.
 
Philippians 1:18,29 And not in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from God. For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

Faith is a gift.

I am surprised that you would adopt such a strategy. If I (or anyone) thinks precisely and carefully about a matter and presents sound argument, there is always the "vain philosophy" card to play in response. What would you expect me and other to do? Respond by saying "Of course, I must be a fool - why did I bother with all thinking and analysis. If only someone had told me that thinking was a waste of time, I could have been about more important matters?"

Whether true or not, using this strategy gives readers the impression that your actual case is not going all that well. Besides, it is a convenient myth to imply that your own reasoning is somehow above the taint of "profance and idle babblings". Everyone uses reason and deduction and principles of logic in their thinking - Calvinist and Arminian alike.

I'm just trying to make you aware of something, Drew. The wisdom that we approach God's Word with is different from the wisdom of the world. It's not any less scrutinizing, but the faith is critical.

1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Hebrews 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

I think that you are taking a worldly wisdom approach because your beliefs seem to be based on on your rejection of what others believe that the Bible teaches, instead of scripture that was sewn into your heart in your search for the truth. This is evidenced in the fact that you very rarely build a positive presentation of what you believe with scripture. Just a though. BTW, I'm not saying that you're you're not saved, I just thought you're approach to scripture should be telling you something.

But it could also be a statement about Jesus "nature"

I actually agree with you here, but I chose to leave it out of the discission because I didn't think that it had anything to do with the point that you were making and would only confuse the matter.

gotta go

Dave
 
Back
Top