OF AUGUSTINE, FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN, GNOSTICISM AND CALVINISM

[Iconoclast]

But what about God being in control of when and where and to what extent a man is ‘response-able’? That’s a God centered/God controlled, yet, non-Calvy belief.

Men are spiritually dead...a corpse...They cannot do anything spiritual unless and until God enables them.
Adam died at the fall. Some on this board do not believe that.
They speak of Adam as if he was only wounded, and is just fine. he can do anything.
They speak of man as he is response -able, following the false teaching of Leighton Flowers.

 

[Fastfredy0]

No Calvinist is going to admit that their belief that God sends some to Hell without any hope MEANS he is unjust.

Every Christian including you believe God is sending people to hell without any hope if you think logically.
Explanation:
Premise 1: In the cases of reprobates God knows before a person is born that he will not believe.
Conclusion1: When a reprobate is born he has NO CHANCE of being saved.

Premise 1: You believe God is unjust if you doesn't give a reprobate a chance to be saved
Conclusion2: Given Conclusion 1, you think God is unjust (I grant you don't think God is unjust, but logically I've shown you do IMO.)
Shame, shame, shame
I know, you think the syllogism is apples and oranges ... I did it to amuse, challenge myself

We just don't have a label and what is more, we are more tolerant.

Well, I believe the truth is less tolerant than your untruth. I give your side 5 points of tolerance. I don't think tolerance is an attribute of a just God, least wise not for the reprobates.

 

[atpollard]

The U. We, on this side, all HATE the U.

I have strong suspicions that any “hatred” of the U (Unconditional Election) is more a misunderstanding than an actual hatred of the doctrine. It has NOTHING to do with Predestination. The gist is “God did not save me because I was better or deserved it, and that other person did not go to hell because his sins were worse.” Our salvation is not based on any innate merit in us (“we were smarter, so we believed”). Whatever the reason is, the elect (a biblical term) are chosen because of NO innate condition in them (unconditionally).

The alternative is the Pelagian view (and I am using the term accurately here) that “I am saved because I am a better person and chose to live a holy life on the power of my own will without any special help from God; those going to hell should have just worked harder to be good - they deserve hell.”

I don’t think you really favor “Conditional Election” (God saves those that earn their salvation and deserve it).

 

[atpollard]

There is no support in scripture for God viewing babies or small children as depraved which means void of all morals.

Actually, that is not what “depraved” of Total Depravity” means. Remember that it is an older term and the language has drifted since it was first used. It means closer to “corrupted” and implies that even babies suffer the ill effects from the fall (original sin).

However, with respect to your point, what exactly is the moral code of a 2 day old infant? What lines will they not cross?

 

[atpollard]

That theology says so but no Calvinist is going to admit it. Now, do you believe God predestines some for Hell and some for Heaven or not?

No … that is Hypercalvinism (a view of radical double predestination that ascribes God as the author of sin).

We believe that everyone is born with a fallen nature and God need do nothing but sit back and every human being without exception would follow their fallen nature and natural desires and earn eternal damnation completely on their own. It is SALVATION that is unnatural for fallen man and requires some special intervention by God.

 

[Fastfredy0]

However, with respect to your point, what exactly is the moral code of a 2 day old infant? What lines will they not cross?

Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5, Isaiah 48:8, John 3:6, Psalm 58:3, 1 Corinthians 15:22; Psalm 58:3

 

[Jethro Bodine]

psalm51

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
psalm58
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

What lie did you speak when you were born, before you could speak?

 

[Iconoclast]

What lie did you speak when you were born, before you could speak?

From womb to tomb we are sinners having died in Adam.
If the Holy Spirit had it written for us I just think he knows .

 

[Jethro Bodine]

From womb to tomb we are sinners having died in Adam.
If the Holy Spirit had it written for us I just think he knows .

A newborn child has committed no sin.
And even if he did he isn't accountable for it yet.

You become a sinner when you sin. As human beings we're bulging with the potential and inevitability to sin right from birth so as to be steeped in it from birth (i.e. John 9:34) even though we haven't actually sinned yet. The Holy Spirit is using a literary device (exaggeration, perhaps? I'm not an English Major) to stress the inevitable path of sin we are all destined from birth to walk.

 

[Iconoclast]

A newborn child has committed no sin

All sinned in Adam. Rom3:23, Romans5 :12-21
All...He was our representative.. All sinned in Him, all die in him,
Those that are in the Last Adam have eternal life. They are there by new birth
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

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

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

And even if he did he isn't accountable for it yet.

all men are accountable as all are able to die.

You become a sinner when you sin

No...at the fall, then at conception.We are not a blank slate. We do sin by experience also, because we are already sinners.

. As human beings we're bulging with the potential and inevitability to sin right from birth so as to be steeped in it from birth (i.e. John 9:34) even though we haven't actually sinned yet. The Holy Spirit is using a literary device (exaggeration, perhaps? I'm not an English Major) to stress the inevitable path of sin we are all destined from birth to walk.

It has to do with the gospel. You do not have to repeat the same exact sin s Adam.
You cannot produce the exact righteousness of Jesus. Both are true..Adam's sin brought death to all men, Jesus righteousness gives eternal life to the elect.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Thank you very much for posting these, sister. I've noticed on several occasions over the years that Augustine's theology was off, and off badly. His background in Manicheaism would partly explain it.

Thing is, and I'm sure some of our brethren in this thread would not like my saying it (though I mean no intentional slight), but the Gnostic view of predestination is actually far more humane compared to the Calvinist view, which is by comparison a theology that essentially depicts God as a Sadist. And the Gnostics HATE the God of the Bible. Now what does that say? Lol.

I'll see if I can post on it later, but the whole thing strikes me as the enemy compounding one falsehood on top of another on top of another to ultimately create what we have now: An incredibly blasphemous and monstrous doctrine that rightly needs to be condemned. I wish I had other words to describe it, but I don't.

But he talks like he's very well-informed, and I've gotten quite a bit out of just the first ten minutes or so of the first video, so thanks. It will give me something to look into over the weekend maybe.

God bless,
- H

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Every Christian including you believe God is sending people to hell without any hope if you think logically.
Explanation:
Premise 1: In the cases of reprobates God knows before a person is born that he will not believe.
Conclusion1: When a reprobate is born he has NO CHANCE of being saved.

Incorrect. The Calvinist believes God CHOOSES people for Heaven or Hell before they are born with no chance either way. You assume that because God KNOWS He therefore chooses mixing up foreknowledge by superior ability with active choice. We know a lot of what will happen depending upon circumstance for which we have no responsibility or or choice. A reprobate makes THEMSELVES such. That God knows does not mean he chose.

And no, only Calvinists believe God is sending people to hell with no hope. The rest of Christendom believes we all have hope in Jesus.

Premise 1: You believe God is unjust if you doesn't give a reprobate a chance to be saved
Conclusion2: Given Conclusion 1, you think God is unjust (I grant you don't think God is unjust, but logically I've shown you do IMO.)
Shame, shame, shame
I know, you think the syllogism is apples and oranges ... I did it to amuse, challenge myself

Premise one assumes facts not in evidence. The change to be saved is not something God "gives" as it is already available to everyman. Only Calvinists insist the reprobate cannot be saved unless God "saves" him ("regenerates") him first. It is only in the calvinism that God has to do it all. The rest of Christendom preaches the good news believing all men can choose to repent and believe. Your worldview clouds gives you assumptions that lead you down the garden path where you find the apples and oranges for your amusement.

Well, I believe the truth is less tolerant than your untruth. I give your side 5 points of tolerance. I don't think tolerance is an attribute of a just God, least wise not for the reprobates.

God is very tolerant. I wondered how He could use, endure, work through, people whose thinking is so far off from the truth (but they are still his) and He showed me how He does this. The word is tolerance but the understanding goes deeper.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Thank you very much for posting these, sister. I've noticed on several occasions over the years that Augustine's theology was off, and off badly. His background in Manicheaism would partly explain it.

Thing is, and I'm sure some of our brethren in this thread would not like my saying it (though I mean no intentional slight), but the Gnostic view of predestination is actually far more humane compared to the Calvinist view, which is by comparison a theology that essentially depicts God as a Sadist. And the Gnostics HATE the God of the Bible. Now what does that say? Lol.

I'll see if I can post on it later, but the whole thing strikes me as the enemy compounding one falsehood on top of another on top of another to ultimately create what we have now: An incredibly blasphemous and monstrous doctrine that rightly needs to be condemned. I wish I had other words to describe it, but I don't.

But he talks like he's very well-informed, and I've gotten quite a bit out of just the first ten minutes or so of the first video, so thanks. It will give me something to look into over the weekend maybe.

God bless,
- H

What is very telling is that NONE of the writings of the church fathers before Augustine had his viewpoint and opposed him as he brought it into the church. Inborn sin nature isn’t there, determined eternity by God isn’t there, and God is blind to our sin isn’t there.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you very much for posting these, sister. I've noticed on several occasions over the years that Augustine's theology was off, and off badly. His background in Manicheaism would partly explain it.

Thing is, and I'm sure some of our brethren in this thread would not like my saying it (though I mean no intentional slight), but the Gnostic view of predestination is actually far more humane compared to the Calvinist view, which is by comparison a theology that essentially depicts God as a Sadist. And the Gnostics HATE the God of the Bible. Now what does that say? Lol.

I'll see if I can post on it later, but the whole thing strikes me as the enemy compounding one falsehood on top of another on top of another to ultimately create what we have now: An incredibly blasphemous and monstrous doctrine that rightly needs to be condemned. I wish I had other words to describe it, but I don't.

But he talks like he's very well-informed, and I've gotten quite a bit out of just the first ten minutes or so of the first video, so thanks. It will give me something to look into over the weekend maybe.

God bless,
- H

It would behoove all Christians to know the Early Church Fathers and some church history.
By this I mean pre 325AD.

As you can see, things started to go awry by the 400s, Augustinian's time.

Kevin Wilson is the top for Augustine.
Jessie Morrell is also very good.

And you're right about how one doctrine demands another ,,,

Total depravity makes one unable to respond to God.
Since God must drag one to Himself, it removes free will.
All the other TULIP acronyms/doctrine follow.

 

[atpollard]

The Calvinist believes God CHOOSES people for Heaven or Hell

False … as explained ad nausium.
Deliberately misrepresenting what your opponent believes is “strawman” and bad form.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Men are spiritually dead...a corpse...They cannot do anything spiritual unless and until God enables them.

I have no grief with this.
Man can not be 'spiritual' until God initiates it.
My assertion is God does that for everybody, even if it's only through nature and conscience.
That way everybody is eventually equipped to exercise a freewill decision to choose or reject him.
In this theology God never purposely denies his mercy and grace to someone who would have otherwise been saved if he'd just given them his mercy and grace!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Total depravity makes one unable to respond to God.
Since God must drag one to Himself, it removes free will.

He doesn't drag. He calls.

And he calls through the gospel message, but also through nature and conscience in the absence of the law and the gospel message. And until that happens man has no capacity to be in spiritual relationship with God. The choice to do that comes with the calling of God.

By definition, natural man does not have faith. He can't know for sure those things that he can not see are true. Only through faith can a man have that capacity. And a man can't have and retain that faith until God calls him, delivering to him the testimony through which that faith comes.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Every Christian including you believe God is sending people to hell without any hope if you think logically.
Explanation:
Premise 1: In the cases of reprobates God knows before a person is born that he will not believe.
Conclusion1: When a reprobate is born he has NO CHANCE of being saved.

The difference in non-Calvy theology is the person that God knew ahead of time would not believe chose that fate for himself when he was brought to the crossroads of decision in this life through the gospel message. And as Paul says, these people that God knew would not believe are useful vessels to him through which he can show his glory to those who do believe.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No...at the fall, then at conception.We are not a blank slate. We do sin by experience also, because we are already sinners.

Please, somebody tell me what sin I was guilty of in the womb and the instant I came out of the womb! But, please, do consider this before you answer:

20The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son. Ezekiel 18:20

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Our salvation is not based on any innate merit in us (“we were smarter, so we believed”).

Paul is careful to say there is no boast in believing. Romans 3:27
So it is impossible to say that having faith is equivalent to meriting justification by works.

Whatever the reason is, the elect (a biblical term) are chosen because of NO innate condition in them (unconditionally).

Actually, the elect become the elect on the basis of having faith in God (as opposed to being elected on the basis of works of righteousness).

Faith in the promise is the condition for being among the elect and Paul made it clear that there is no boast in that. Calvinism says there is.