No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Some of Kens writings were really deep and maybe its because I have not studied those topics as in depth as Ken obviously has with those subjects. For me to my shame there was a lack of interest in them not because they have no importance but because my personal priorities have always been on what I consider as does most Christendom to be the essentials of our faith. But I will say Ken was gifted and blessed with a brilliant mind whether or not you agreed with him.
To some extent, we're all Paternal Traducianists because it explains why Jesus wasn't born in Original Sin; but our 'Real Participation' with Adam in the Fall is harder to swallow...

Email him :)
 

civic

Well-known member
To some extent, we're all Paternal Traducianists because it explains why Jesus wasn't born in Original Sin; but our 'Real Participation' with Adam in the Fall is harder to swallow...

Email him :)
I found this interesting.

Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart​

Ken Hamrick Uncategorized March 6, 2013 2 Minutes
Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart

  • The chart is intended to represent the spectrum, with those doctrines that are least likely to be held by Calvinists at the top, and those least likely to be held by Traditionalists at the bottom, but with incremental steps toward the middle mapped out. As you move toward the middle of the chart, you find more potentially common doctrines. The idea is that you could take a sliding bracket and move up or down the chart, so that you could have eternal security at the bottom of the bracket and Libertarian free will at the top of the bracket, and have a good representation of an actual set of doctrines held by many within the SBC. Additionally, it is illustrated that all of us “slide the bracket” one way or the other to some degree.
  • The Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is often confused with the Baptist doctrine of eternal security (once genuinely saved, always saved), but the two are very different. In fact, the doctrine of perseverance of the saints has much in common with the Arminian doctrine of a losable salvation. Both perseverance and losable salvation portray apostasy as a real and ongoing danger, overcome only by the efforts of the believer in concert with the grace of God. In other words, in the perseverance doctrine, God keep His own by ensuring that their works are sufficient to keep them from falling away; while in the eternal security doctrine, those who genuinely believe in Christ are forever secure based on the works of Christ alone—there is no danger of apostasy.
  • The term, Traditionalist, is not precisely defined, and covers both non-Augustinians (denying prevenient grace and total inability of the sinner, etc.) as well as those who are more Augustinian (affirming prevenient grace and total inability, etc.).
  • The distinction between moral inability and natural inability was taught by Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller. A natural inability is like a man born blind, who cannot see no matter how much he might want to. Natural inability provides an excuse. A moral inability is like a rebellious child who holds his hands over his eyes and refuses to see. The inability in both cases is just as debilitating — both will fall into the ditch if they try to walk — but the latter inability provides no excuse.
  • This was also posted at SBC Open Forum.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I found this interesting.

Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart​

Ken Hamrick Uncategorized March 6, 2013 2 Minutes
Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart

  • The chart is intended to represent the spectrum, with those doctrines that are least likely to be held by Calvinists at the top, and those least likely to be held by Traditionalists at the bottom, but with incremental steps toward the middle mapped out. As you move toward the middle of the chart, you find more potentially common doctrines. The idea is that you could take a sliding bracket and move up or down the chart, so that you could have eternal security at the bottom of the bracket and Libertarian free will at the top of the bracket, and have a good representation of an actual set of doctrines held by many within the SBC. Additionally, it is illustrated that all of us “slide the bracket” one way or the other to some degree.
  • The Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is often confused with the Baptist doctrine of eternal security (once genuinely saved, always saved), but the two are very different. In fact, the doctrine of perseverance of the saints has much in common with the Arminian doctrine of a losable salvation. Both perseverance and losable salvation portray apostasy as a real and ongoing danger, overcome only by the efforts of the believer in concert with the grace of God. In other words, in the perseverance doctrine, God keep His own by ensuring that their works are sufficient to keep them from falling away; while in the eternal security doctrine, those who genuinely believe in Christ are forever secure based on the works of Christ alone—there is no danger of apostasy.
  • The term, Traditionalist, is not precisely defined, and covers both non-Augustinians (denying prevenient grace and total inability of the sinner, etc.) as well as those who are more Augustinian (affirming prevenient grace and total inability, etc.).
  • The distinction between moral inability and natural inability was taught by Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller. A natural inability is like a man born blind, who cannot see no matter how much he might want to. Natural inability provides an excuse. A moral inability is like a rebellious child who holds his hands over his eyes and refuses to see. The inability in both cases is just as debilitating — both will fall into the ditch if they try to walk — but the latter inability provides no excuse.
  • This was also posted at SBC Open Forum.
Yeah, I forgot he held to Moral Inability...
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
I found this interesting.

Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart​

Ken Hamrick Uncategorized March 6, 2013 2 Minutes
Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart

  • The chart is intended to represent the spectrum, with those doctrines that are least likely to be held by Calvinists at the top, and those least likely to be held by Traditionalists at the bottom, but with incremental steps toward the middle mapped out. As you move toward the middle of the chart, you find more potentially common doctrines. The idea is that you could take a sliding bracket and move up or down the chart, so that you could have eternal security at the bottom of the bracket and Libertarian free will at the top of the bracket, and have a good representation of an actual set of doctrines held by many within the SBC. Additionally, it is illustrated that all of us “slide the bracket” one way or the other to some degree.
  • The Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is often confused with the Baptist doctrine of eternal security (once genuinely saved, always saved), but the two are very different. In fact, the doctrine of perseverance of the saints has much in common with the Arminian doctrine of a losable salvation. Both perseverance and losable salvation portray apostasy as a real and ongoing danger, overcome only by the efforts of the believer in concert with the grace of God. In other words, in the perseverance doctrine, God keep His own by ensuring that their works are sufficient to keep them from falling away; while in the eternal security doctrine, those who genuinely believe in Christ are forever secure based on the works of Christ alone—there is no danger of apostasy.
  • The term, Traditionalist, is not precisely defined, and covers both non-Augustinians (denying prevenient grace and total inability of the sinner, etc.) as well as those who are more Augustinian (affirming prevenient grace and total inability, etc.).
  • The distinction between moral inability and natural inability was taught by Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller. A natural inability is like a man born blind, who cannot see no matter how much he might want to. Natural inability provides an excuse. A moral inability is like a rebellious child who holds his hands over his eyes and refuses to see. The inability in both cases is just as debilitating — both will fall into the ditch if they try to walk — but the latter inability provides no excuse.
  • This was also posted at SBC Open Forum.
That chart was very helpful to understand the differences. I’m a visual learner and that helped me.
 

cadwell

Member
Of course it was passed down otherwise one would never get sick, die or sin. Sin effected both mans spiritual and physical condition.
Strawman. I dont deny the impact, my argument is about HOW we are impacted. You claim dna, or genetics, or heredity, or whatever else NON BIBLICAL explanation you parrot. The bible says that Adams sin impacted man in that he (and thus man) was banished from the garden, without freedom to eat from the tree of life, and live forever.

Gen 3
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.


That is how by one man death passed to all men. Thats the difference in our arguments. Yours is based on vain philosophies fabricated centuries ago, and mine is based on the mouth of God.
Duh................................................................................................................................................


This happens( sin passed down from the fall) even in the womb which is why we call it birth defects.
YOU say that, the bible says no such thing. God didnt alter mans physical makeup because of Adam. God simply placed two angels with flaming swords in front of the tree of life because of Adam.

You see its your human reasoning that prevents you from understanding the TRUTH of original sin. It must be spiritually discerned and you have demonstrated your complete lack in the things of the spirit. Your carnal approach to scripture prevents you from knowing the truth.
Useless grandstanding as always. If you want to talk about the mark of a false teacher, one of them is how they always have some deep "spiritual" understanding that others dont. Thats their excuse for their non biblical philosophies, its just too "spiritual" to be understood. Hogwash. Your doctrine denies the word of God. Adam lived forever because he ate of the tree of life, not because we was genetically immortal. His sin doesnt make people sinners from conception, it makes people unable to access that which keeps us alive forever (the tree of life), from conception. That the ultimate realization of the cycle from life to death to life, from Adam to Jesus.

Revelation 22
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
 

cadwell

Member
I'm going to address this: The above is nothing short of bearing false witness. Others take note.
You dont get to tell me what my argument is. I am more than capable of speaking for myself. Anything you say about my argument that I dont say myself is a misrepresentation. I will kindly ask again, please refrain from misrepresenting me. The only thing I am taking note of is your continued inability to directly address my argument in favor of this useless ad hominem.
 

civic

Well-known member
Strawman. I dont deny the impact, my argument is about HOW we are impacted. You claim dna, or genetics, or heredity, or whatever else NON BIBLICAL explanation you parrot. The bible says that Adams sin impacted man in that he (and thus man) was banished from the garden, without freedom to eat from the tree of life, and live forever.

Gen 3
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.


That is how by one man death passed to all men. Thats the difference in our arguments. Yours is based on vain philosophies fabricated centuries ago, and mine is based on the mouth of God.

YOU say that, the bible says no such thing. God didnt alter mans physical makeup because of Adam. God simply placed two angels with flaming swords in front of the tree of life because of Adam.


Useless grandstanding as always. If you want to talk about the mark of a false teacher, one of them is how they always have some deep "spiritual" understanding that others dont. Thats their excuse for their non biblical philosophies, its just too "spiritual" to be understood. Hogwash. Your doctrine denies the word of God. Adam lived forever because he ate of the tree of life, not because we was genetically immortal. His sin doesnt make people sinners from conception, it makes people unable to access that which keeps us alive forever (the tree of life), from conception. That the ultimate realization of the cycle from life to death to life, from Adam to Jesus.

Revelation 22
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Your human pelagian reasoning is highly offense. All Pelagians like you which are considered heretics and heterodox by Historic Christendom deny original sin. You are outside of Christianity whether or not you are willing to admit that cad.

hope this helps !!!
 

civic

Well-known member
You dont get to tell me what my argument is. I am more than capable of speaking for myself. Anything you say about my argument that I dont say myself is a misrepresentation. I will kindly ask again, please refrain from misrepresenting me. The only thing I am taking note of is your continued inability to directly address my argument in favor of this useless ad hominem.
No one here has misrepresented you that is a false claim. Prove it by quoting the poster and showing you didn't say or imply that in your post.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Original Sin is a generational Curse which results in our inheriting the Unconditional Consequences and Guilt of Adam's Original Sin in the Garden of Eden for breaking the Edenic Covenant of Works, as if we we're Real Participants with Adam and Eve; leaving all who are in Adam Fallen, Totally Depraved Sinners...
This I would agree. I would just add that man because of this participation with Adam the consequences is man is born spiritually dead to God, just as much as God told Adam[man] that in the day he eats, he should surely die ! Gen 2:17


But 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 word die mut means

  1. to die, kill, have one executed
    1. (Qal)
      1. to die
      2. to die (as penalty), be put to death
      3. to die, perish (of a nation)
      4. to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
    2. (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
    3. (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
    4. (Hophal)
      1. to be killed, be put to death
        1. to die prematurely

So from that time forward, for any man or person to have any meaningful spiritual relationship with God, they must be born again, or made alive ! And thats totally out of mans ability to do, so much so as it was out of Lazarus control to make himself alive as he lay in his physical death and stinketh !

This is why no man can come to Christ, who is God, by their so called own freewill, that would mean he wasn't dead !
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
All Gods Elect and the non elect are by nature spiritually dead, dead in sin Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13. This means that all men naturally are living without spiritual life and alienated from God. Eph 4:18

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

Col 1:21

And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

As such we are naturally in spiritual death Rom 8:6

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.80

All by nature are carnal minded, that cant be helped, even if we are very pious and religious and moral.

In this state we have no affections or motion towards God Rom 3:11

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Thats why Jesus says of man naturally Jn 6:44,65

44 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.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
God has given gracious divine help: Creation testifying, law written in the hearts, conscience bearing witness, Holy Spirit reproving, the gospel of salvation to whosoever believes.
Sorry but unless the help God gives a person is life from the dead, man remains dead and alienated from God. Natures revelation , or moral dictates to mans heart dont give life, doesnt solve the problem of man being dead !
 

PeanutGallery

Well-known member
... Natures revelation , or moral dictates to mans heart dont give life, doesnt solve the problem of man being dead !
Of course they do not give life; it does, however, point the way to obtain life by faith.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Of course they do not give life; it does, however, point the way to obtain life by faith.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
So thats the problem, man is dead to God, so nothing helps him but to be given life, and that's out of mans control.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
So thats the problem, man is dead to God, so nothing helps him but to be given life, and that's out of mans control.
Are you saying that a mans will cannot choose God. Isn’t man responsible to choose serving God ?

Joshua 24:14-15
Now fear the Lordand serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Are you saying that a mans will cannot choose God. Isn’t man responsible to choose serving God ?

Joshua 24:14-15
Now fear the Lordand serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

Just to be clear, Classical Arminians also teach everyone is dead in sins and unable to come to God on their steam, God's grace always precedes man's efforts.

Arminians believe grace can be resisted (as the Bible actually describes), and this is where the "choose ye this day" comes in.

"Provisionists" (fans of Dr. Leighton Flowers) and similar soteriologies that mitigate the effects of original sin do not believe in the need for preceding grace.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Are you saying that a mans will cannot choose God. Isn’t man responsible to choose serving God ?

Joshua 24:14-15
Now fear the Lordand serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
A dead person is dead to God, until he is given life, hes in a hopeless situation.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Were they dead in Joshua 24 ?

The people Joshua spoke to sure appeared to be alive when I read the chapter .
Yes if they weren't regenerated they were dead to God. Besides that, Joshua was speaking to the people as a whole, the redeemed nation of israel, they were as a nation already the people of God. However if it came to a person personally, they must like any other sinner must needs to be made spiritually alive to serve the Living God, which comes through the blood of Christ Heb 9:14

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
 
Top