Dueteronomy 30:6

[fltom]

No, what I "dispute" is your false claim that God puts His spirit in unbelievers, and they remain unbelievers.

I "dispute" your false claim that one must FIRST "choose" to be a believer, before God "responds" by putting His Spirit in them.

But I guess the nuance is beyond your ability to understand.

Sorry that is not my claim

I deny God puts his spirit in unbelievers

Hello

but are you now affirming God puts his spirit in unbelievers?

speak up don't be shy

is that now your belief

 

[Reformedguy]

Sorry that is not my claim

I deny God puts his spirit in unbelievers

Hello

but are you now affirming God puts his spirit in unbelievers?

speak up don't be shy

is that now your belief

You cannot understand Spiritual things without the Spirit, So how did you come to understand the gospel without the Spirit?

 

[Theo1689]

Sorry that is not my claim

I deny God puts his spirit in unbelievers

I never said you believe God puts his spirit in unblievers.
I guess you failed reading comprehension, huh?

Hello

You also appear to have failed etiquette.
"Hello" comes at the BEGINNING of a conversation, not in the middle.
Pay attention next time, okay?
I know you can do it if you concentrate hard enough!

but are you now affirming God puts his spirit in unbelievers?

speak up don't be shy

is that now your belief

Sorry, but I already explained myself adequately.
And others were able to understand it.

So I don't appreciate you trying to TWIST my beliefs.
True Christians don't do that.
The good news is, you have LOTS of room for improvement.

 

[fltom]

I never said you believe God puts his spirit in unblievers.
I guess you failed reading comprehension, huh?

Yeah you did

Your words

No, what I "dispute" is your false claim that God puts His spirit in unbelievers, and they remain unbelievers.

You don't even know what you wrote

such is not and never was my position

so you failed reading comprehension

You also appear to have failed etiquette.
"Hello" comes at the BEGINNING of a conversation, not in the middle.
Pay attention next time, okay?
I know you can do it if you concentrate hard enough!

Only when it is a greeting

It was not

Sorry, but I already explained myself adequately.
And others were able to understand it.

So I don't appreciate you trying to TWIST my beliefs.
True Christians don't do that.
The good news is, you have LOTS of room for improvement.

We have already seen you don't know what you stated

so it could hardly be adequately explained

not only did you mangle that but you ascribed a position to me which was a misrepresentation

and you want to cry you were misrepresented

so by your statement

"True Christians don't do that."

you have condemned yourself

 

[fltom]

You cannot understand Spiritual things without the Spirit, So how did you come to understand the gospel without the Spirit?

Sorry that is your theology

scripture states you cannot have the spirit without faith

so you must be able to understand certain spiritual things without the spirit

you had it backwards

BTW you still have no verse showing unbelieving Israelites have the spirit put in them

 

[Ladodgers6]

I appreciate your not wanting to create a straw man to argue against.

No problem, I wish we could receive the same courtesy in return. I believe this happens because either side does not completely read to understand the opposing side argument, there's pre-misconception from the start, or people just skimming over posts, then judging. Which is why ask questions to get clarity, from ambiguous comments. Which also leads in lack of information provided to understanding the thoughts of the poster. And finally, people not replying to questions that are posed to them. I said my peace.

Secondly, "sinthorns" is a typo. I was speaking of the effects of Adam's sin upon all mankind that would follow after him. The curses of thorns and weeds and eating by the sweat of the brow and labor pains greatly increased are the temporal consequences of sin that will, and have followed our first parent's sin, passed down as the ongoing effects of their actions. Adam and Eve ruined the playing field for all their offspring.

My question here Doug, in your view, why are people suffering for the sin of Adam? By Native Depravity or Native Demerit (Tom) believes that the sons are not punished for their fathers' sins, he even quoted scripture. Wouldn't this make God a moral monster for punishing innocent people for sins they did not commit?

You don't have to beg, my friend; you may freely disagree anytime you want!
But seriously, the punishment of the parents will affect their children and grandchildren as well.

Yes, I agree with you on this point; for example, the generations of Israelites who were in bondage in Egypt, the children or new generations were still suffering in bondage, but they were in solidarity in the Covenant made with God.

But there is a connection to Adam here, with the Israelites. The Israelites also broke a Covenant with God (Hosea 6:7But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me). So, in this Covenant of Works the first Adam is the representative for the whole human race, and the human race is in union/solidarity with Adam. As it is the same with being in Union or Solidarity with the Last Adam!

A banker that has gained a great deal of wealth, providing his family with privilege and prosperity, is found guilty of various white collar crimes that had bankrupted his clients and padded his own pockets. The consequence of his guilt is that his wealth is confiscated and his assets seized, leaving his family destitute, derided, and disgraced. This is not their guilt, but the guilt of their father, yet they too are suffering from the consequences of his actions without ever being guilty of any wrong doing.

I beg to differ , because this analogy is not sufficient, let me explain, why. Those victims of this crime do not suffer prison time, like life if somebody was killed in the process of committing this crime. In Romans 5, death still reigned between Adam to Moses, where there was no law, and sin not counted. But they still suffered the exact curse mentioned in the Covenant of Works given to Adam! Death is the judgement, and everyone is cursed, no exceptions, including babies. So, the consequence analogy falls flat, sorry, but it does.

The bankers punishment is prison and fines, as well as compensation for his victims. The family of the banker is not subjected to these punitive measures; no prison, no legal guilt, no lean on their incomes to pay retributions to victims. But they, as a result of the bankers actions, are humiliated, perhaps hungry, and subject to the harassment of the publicity that will follow them the rest of their lives.

So, if the victims do not face the same punishment as the bankers, then your analogy here falls flat again (comments above). In this analogy the victims do not face prison time or any punitive measures, like Adam's progeny does.

Thorns, weeds, sweaty brows and painful labor is the temporal consequence of Adam's sin, the spiritual consequence is separation from God, and thus falling under the domination of our new master, Sin, whose wages is death. "In the day you eat thereof, you will surely die"!

We are condemned personally by our own sinful acts, not those of our father (Ezekiel 18); but Adam and Eve were the whole of humanity when they fell, thus the whole of humanity is now at odds with God and is separated from fellowship with him. The progeny of the father of the human race are necessarily affected by and subject to the results of Adam's actions, and thus are born into separation, born into sinfulness, and thus born to sin. Our own sin condemns us!

This passage does not relate to the One Act of Disobedience of Adam, here's why:

"The most conclusive refutation of the Pelagian interpretation is derived from repeated and emphatic affirmations of Paul in the immediate context, affirmations, to the effect that the universal sway of condemnation and death is to be referred to the one sin of the one-man Adam. On at least five occasions in verses 15-19 this principle is asserted---"by the trespass of the one the many died" (vs 15); "the judgment was from one unto condemnation" (vs 16); "by the trespass of the one death reigned through the one" (vs 17); "through one trespass judgment came upon all men unto condemnation" (vs 18); "through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners" (vs 19). It is quite impossible to construe this emphasis upon the one sin of the one man as equivalent to the actual personal sin of countless individuals. It is indisputable, therefore, that Paul regards the universality of condemnation and death as grounded upon and proceeding from the one trespass of the one-man Adam. And the Pelagian insistence that death and condemnation find their ground solely in the personal voluntary sin of the individuals of the human race cannot be harmonized with this sustain witness of the Apostle Paul.

The Pelagian exegesis destroys the force of the analogy which Paul institutes in this passage as a whole. The doctrine Paul is illustrating by appeal to the analogy of the condemnation and death proceeding from Adam is the doctrine that men are justified by the free grace of God on the basis of the righteousness and obedience of Christ. What Paul has been controverting (denying) in the earlier part of the epistle is that men are justified by their own works. He is establishing the truth that men are justified and attain to life by what another has done, the one-man Jesus Christ. How vacuous and contradictory would be any appeal to the parallel obtaining in the relation of Adam to the human race if the Pelagian construction were that of Paul, namely, that men die simply because of their own sin and not at all on the ground of Adam's sin! Paul's doctrine of justification would be nullified if, at this point, the parallel he uses to illustrate and confirm it is after the pattern of the Pelagian construction. For it would mean that men are justified by their own voluntary action just as they come under condemnation solely by their own voluntary sin. This is indeed Pelagian doctrine but that it contradicts the teaching of Paul lies on the face of the epistle. The doctrine of justification which this epistle establishes is a doctrine which cannot tolerate as its analogy or parallel a construction of the reign of sin, condemnation, and death which bears any resemblance to the Pelagian. Hence the Pelagian view must be rejected on this ground as well as on that of the others mentioned. (John Murray, "The Imputation of Adam's Sin," pg. 11-12.)​

No I did not say "nobody can sin or be a moral agent, until a certain age", I said that we do not become culpable for sin until we reach the point of cognitively knowing the difference between right and wrong. That we can and do sin before this point is not disputed, but God does not hold us accountable for these acts until the knowledge of the Law, ie, what's right and what's wrong,

Doug, did you not post that children must be at least 3-4 years of age? Let me look at your last post.

Yes, because we are part of the human race, who are separated from God ad a whole, because the whole of humanity.

May the Lord, whose wounds grant healing, surround you, uphold you, preserve you and give you peace!


Doug

I am glad we can have civil discussions, Doug. Have a Merry Christmas to you and yours!

 

[fltom]

My question here Doug, in your view, why are people suffering for the sin of Adam? By Native Depravity or Native Demerit (Tom) believes that the sons are not punished for their fathers' sins, he even quoted scripture. Wouldn't this make God a moral monster for punishing innocent people for sins they did not commit?

The terms native depravity and native demerit come from Miley's systematic theology

Miley was an Arminian

who states

We have found the arguments for native sinfulness in the sense of demerit entirely insufficient for its proof.

John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 1 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892), 516.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The terms native depravity and native demerit come from Miley's systematic theology

Miley was an Arminian

who states

We have found the arguments for native sinfulness in the sense of demerit entirely insufficient for its proof.

John Miley, Systematic Theology, Volume 1 (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1892), 516.

Do you believe that Adam's sin was imputed, or do you deny it?

 

[fltom]

Do you believe that Adam's sin was imputed, or do you deny it?

I told you what I believe

Inherited depravity (native depravity) not inherited guilt (no native demerit)

That is the Arminian position

 

[Sethproton]

Who said anything about winning anything? Congrats on defeating a arguement nobody makes

Was that post to somone else? I said nothing about winning anything

 

[Ladodgers6]

I told you what I believe

Inherited depravity (native depravity) not inherited guilt (no native demerit)

That is the Arminian position

Like it or not Pelagius taught that as well.

 

[TibiasDad]

No problem, I wish we could receive the same courtesy in return. I believe this happens because either side does not completely read to understand the opposing side argument, there's pre-misconception from the start, or people just skimming over posts, then judging. Which is why ask questions to get clarity, from ambiguous comments. Which also leads in lack of information provided to understanding the thoughts of the poster. And finally, people not replying to questions that are posed to them. I said my peace.

I have tried to present my views on Calvinism based on the factual foundations of historic Reformed thinking. Certainly, my 7 years in this forum have not been without error of understanding the meanings of certain aspects of Reformed thought, but I have not sought to deliberately argue against something that a poster or advocate of Calvinism hasn't actually claimed as true.

My question here Doug, in your view, why are people suffering for the sin of Adam? By Native Depravity or Native Demerit (Tom) believes that the sons are not punished for their fathers' sins, he even quoted scripture. Wouldn't this make God a moral monster for punishing innocent people for sins they did not commit?

The collateral effects of a sin are not the same as the punitive measures against the one who actually is guilty of an act of sin. I agree with Tom that the Divine proclamation in Ezekiel 18 shows how God deals with punitive judgements of sin, each man will be punished for his own sins only! Collateral effects are not punitive!

Yes, I agree with you on this point; for example, the generations of Israelites who were in bondage in Egypt, the children or new generations were still suffering in bondage, but they were in solidarity in the Covenant made with God.

But there is a connection to Adam here, with the Israelites. The Israelites also broke a Covenant with God (Hosea 6:7But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me). So, in this Covenant of Works the first Adam is the representative for the whole human race, and the human race is in union/solidarity with Adam. As it is the same with being in Union or Solidarity with the Last Adam!

I think your hermeneutics are being stretched rather thin here with Hose a 6:7. This is a simile, that only shows that Israel was breaking God's laws and instructions in the same manner that Adam did. It doesn't mean that they acted with Adam.

I beg to differ , because this analogy is not sufficient, let me explain, why. Those victims of this crime do not suffer prison time, like life if somebody was killed in the process of committing this crime. In Romans 5, death still reigned between Adam to Moses, where there was no law, and sin not counted. But they still suffered the exact curse mentioned in the Covenant of Works given to Adam! Death is the judgement, and everyone is cursed, no exceptions, including babies. So, the consequence analogy falls flat, sorry, but it does.

So, if the victims do not face the same punishment as the bankers, then your analogy here falls flat again (comments above). In this analogy the victims do not face prison time or any punitive measures, like Adam's progeny does.

This passage does not relate to the One Act of Disobedience of Adam, here's why:

"The most conclusive refutation of the Pelagian interpretation is derived from repeated and emphatic affirmations of Paul in the immediate context, affirmations, to the effect that the universal sway of condemnation and death is to be referred to the one sin of the one-man Adam. On at least five occasions in verses 15-19 this principle is asserted---"by the trespass of the one the many died" (vs 15); "the judgment was from one unto condemnation" (vs 16); "by the trespass of the one death reigned through the one" (vs 17); "through one trespass judgment came upon all men unto condemnation" (vs 18); "through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners" (vs 19). It is quite impossible to construe this emphasis upon the one sin of the one man as equivalent to the actual personal sin of countless individuals. It is indisputable, therefore, that Paul regards the universality of condemnation and death as grounded upon and proceeding from the one trespass of the one-man Adam. And the Pelagian insistence that death and condemnation find their ground solely in the personal voluntary sin of the individuals of the human race cannot be harmonized with this sustain witness of the Apostle Paul.

The Pelagian exegesis destroys the force of the analogy which Paul institutes in this passage as a whole. The doctrine Paul is illustrating by appeal to the analogy of the condemnation and death proceeding from Adam is the doctrine that men are justified by the free grace of God on the basis of the righteousness and obedience of Christ. What Paul has been controverting (denying) in the earlier part of the epistle is that men are justified by their own works. He is establishing the truth that men are justified and attain to life by what another has done, the one-man Jesus Christ. How vacuous and contradictory would be any appeal to the parallel obtaining in the relation of Adam to the human race if the Pelagian construction were that of Paul, namely, that men die simply because of their own sin and not at all on the ground of Adam's sin! Paul's doctrine of justification would be nullified if, at this point, the parallel he uses to illustrate and confirm it is after the pattern of the Pelagian construction. For it would mean that men are justified by their own voluntary action just as they come under condemnation solely by their own voluntary sin. This is indeed Pelagian doctrine but that it contradicts the teaching of Paul lies on the face of the epistle. The doctrine of justification which this epistle establishes is a doctrine which cannot tolerate as its analogy or parallel a construction of the reign of sin, condemnation, and death which bears any resemblance to the Pelagian. Hence the Pelagian view must be rejected on this ground as well as on that of the others mentioned. (John Murray, "The Imputation of Adam's Sin," pg. 11-12.)​

Doug, did you not post that children must be at least 3-4 years of age? Let me look at your last post.

I am glad we can have civil discussions, Doug. Have a Merry Christmas to you and yours!

 

[TibiasDad]

I beg to differ , because this analogy is not sufficient, let me explain, why. Those victims of this crime do not suffer prison time, like life if somebody was killed in the process of committing this crime. In Romans 5, death still reigned between Adam to Moses, where there was no law, and sin not counted. But they still suffered the exact curse mentioned in the Covenant of Works given to Adam! Death is the judgement, and everyone is cursed, no exceptions, including babies. So, the consequence analogy falls flat, sorry, but it does.

Again, your making a category error in equating the victims of the crime with the progeny of family of the perpetrator of the crime. Certainly, there are commonalities between the two, but they are different categories in the equation.

If sin is not counted against us until the law is in effect, then there can be no punishment enacted upon them! Just as the bankers imprisonment meant desolation for his family, who had done nothing wrong, Adam's imprisonment to sin leaves us desolate from the start of our lives, even before we have done anything good or bad.

Another point of definition, LA, I'm not sure that I would call the "dying" factor or even the "thorns and increased labor pains" punishment. They were told that the eating of the forbidden tree would result in instant death, or separation from intimacy with God. But this is not necessarily the ultimate ending of the story. Punishment, especially in the spiritual/eternal sense of the word, is forever and irreversible. Consequences on the other hand, may set the type of playing field that one must operate within, but it is not necessarily imposed because of personal guilt.

The banker's family are forced from their home and lifestyle and into poverty, but they are not guilty of perpetrating the crime. They are secondary collateral damage in the wake of the banker's theft of his victim's money. They are not legally condemned, but are temporally effected in a negative manner just the same.

Adam's actions resulted in permanent temporal consequences that every generation to follow would be subject to experience. Not because they did anything to deserve it but rather because this was the consequence of their forefather's choices and actions!
As a result we are born to sin of our own volition, and like Israel in Hosea 6:7, wr are following the pattern of Adam's sin. But it does not mean we also sinned with our father the banker.


More later...


Doug

 

[Ladodgers6]

I have tried to present my views on Calvinism based on the factual foundations of historic Reformed thinking. Certainly, my 7 years in this forum have not been without error of understanding the meanings of certain aspects of Reformed thought, but I have not sought to deliberately argue against something that a poster or advocate of Calvinism hasn't actually claimed as true.

The collateral effects of a sin are not the same as the punitive measures against the one who actually is guilty of an act of sin. I agree with Tom that the Divine proclamation in Ezekiel 18 shows how God deals with punitive judgements of sin, each man will be punished for his own sins only! Collateral effects are not punitive!

There is no collateral damage if Adam's sin is not imputed to his progeny. This idea contradicts your own views, that the fathers' sins do not pass to the sons, correct? But death & condemnation judgment are passed on to all Adam's progeny (human race) because of our solidarity (union) in Adam. Just like believers are in solidarity (union) with Christ. This is the parallel Paul is making here. By One act of disobedience, paralleling with One Act of obedience of the one-man. You cannot deny this is what Paul is illustrating, by denying it, you are Pelagian, plain and simple! John Murray stated it well, because our justification lies only in Christ who provided the obedience for our justification, not us! I hope you following the train of thought here, Doug?

I think your hermeneutics are being stretched rather thin here with Hose a 6:7. This is a simile, that only shows that Israel was breaking God's laws and instructions in the same manner that Adam did. It doesn't mean that they acted with Adam.

Again, I beg to differ! It's about solidarity; a theocracy; a nation constituted by God and his Covenant. And if breached the sanction falls upon all.

I see you avoided Murray's excellent refutation of your view.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Again, your making a category error in equating the victims of the crime with the progeny of family of the perpetrator of the crime. Certainly, there are commonalities between the two, but they are different categories in the equation.

This thinking is precisely why you are missing Paul's point. Yet death reigned between Adam & Moses, where there is no law, and sin is not counted! So, condemnation & death is not because of our individual sins, but because of the One-Man's sin! And Paul illustrates this point emphatically in verses 15-19.

If sin is not counted against us until the law is in effect, then there can be no punishment enacted upon them! Just as the bankers imprisonment meant desolation for his family, who had done nothing wrong, Adam's imprisonment to sin leaves us desolate from the start of our lives, even before we have done anything good or bad.

You're getting warmer, Doug! So, if there is no sin counted, then why does Death reign without the Law? Paul provides the answer in verses 15-19. Condemnation & Death came to all of us by One Sin, and through One-Man! Who is it?

Another point of definition, LA, I'm not sure that I would call the "dying" factor or even the "thorns and increased labor pains" punishment. They were told that the eating of the forbidden tree would result in instant death, or separation from intimacy with God. But this is not necessarily the ultimate ending of the story. Punishment, especially in the spiritual/eternal sense of the word, is forever and irreversible. Consequences on the other hand, may set the type of playing field that one must operate within, but it is not necessarily imposed because of personal guilt.

Should I use your rebuttal here, and say this is philosophical argument, not Scriptural.

The banker's family are forced from their home and lifestyle and into poverty, but they are not guilty of perpetrating the crime. They are secondary collateral damage in the wake of the banker's theft of his victim's money. They are not legally condemned, but are temporally effected in a negative manner just the same.

This is reaching for something that is not there. Is the banker's family under condemnation & death? There is no legal threat, Doug. There is no curse by God, Doug. The family can bound back and start over, by pushing the reset button. Adam's progeny cannot do that.

Adam's actions resulted in permanent temporal consequences that every generation to follow would be subject to experience. Not because they did anything to deserve it but rather because this was the consequence of their forefather's choices and actions!
As a result we are born to sin of our own volition, and like Israel in Hosea 6:7, wr are following the pattern of Adam's sin. But it does not mean we also sinned with our father the banker.


More later...


Doug

I am very curious if you are going to attempt to reply to what Murray wrote about this? He nailed it on the head, that your view, like it or not, is Pelagian. The tale of two Adams is emphatically illustrated by Paul that Union with both Adam is the basis of death & condemnation on the one hand, and Justification & life on the other. Based on their performance of disobedience vs obedience, not ours! Our condemnation is by the imputation of Adam's sin, and our Justification is by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This is the Gospel, to deny this, is to deny the Gospel, namely Christ himself! The Pelagian view!

I hope that you will reply to what Murray wrote.

Good day, sir!

 

[fltom]

Like it or not Pelagius taught that as well.

Pelagianism teaches no native depravity and no native demerit

Like it or not

You will note Humans at birth are neutral under Pelagianism

Native depravity is contrary to that

 

[Reformedguy]

Sorry that is your theology

scripture states you cannot have the spirit without faith

so you must be able to understand certain spiritual things without the spirit

you had it backwards

BTW you still have no verse showing unbelieving Israelites have the spirit put in them

Does it say you cannot understand Spiritual things without the Spirit yes or no?

 

[fltom]

Does it say you cannot understand Spiritual things without the Spirit yes or no?

Actually no

That is the interpretation of a particular translation

I will grant however without the Spirit one cannot know the hidden things that are in the mind of God

However when these things are revealed by the spirit and preached or written down they can be known

Now what do you do with the fact the bible shows those who have faith will receive the Spirit

They had faith before the spirit

Your interpretation leads to contradiction and contradict is a result of error

Your view therefore is erroneous

 

[Reformedguy]

Actually no

That is the interpretation of a particular translation

I will grant however without the Spirit one cannot know the hidden things that are in the mind of God

However when these things are revealed by the spirit and preached or written down they can be known

Now what do you do with the fact the bible shows those who have faith will receive the Spirit

They had faith before the spirit

Your interpretation leads to contradiction and contradict is a result of error

Your view therefore is erroneous

umm.... Sorry. The natural man, man without the Spirit, does not understand the the things of God. So how did you come to undetrstand the things of God without the Spirit?

 

[fltom]

umm.... Sorry. The natural man, man without the Spirit, does not understand the the things of God. So how did you come to undetrstand the things of God without the Spirit?

The hidden things in the mind of God he cannot knowv withouit the spirit

The revealed things he can understand

you ignored the scripture

John 7:38-39 (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

showing they believed before having the spirit

a fact frequently repeated

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Galatians 3:14 (KJV)
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

and because you ignore the scripture you show your authority is not the word of God

It is your theology