|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 24, 2008 10:36:37 GMT -5
"... judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyward. What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?" Isaiah 5:3-4
This verse completely discredits Calvinistic "Sovereignty" and even complicates classic "foreknowledge". But this verse clearly implies "Open Theism" and "free will".
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Jul 24, 2008 22:57:11 GMT -5
Logic - That was a tremendous dissection of this article! Its amazing what a little common sense will do to Calvinism!
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Jul 25, 2008 5:15:15 GMT -5
This is a most interesting thread we have going.... ;D Fact of the matter is that I was surprised.... When I first heard the caller and I said, "is this Jesse?" and when the caller did not respond.... I thought to myself, "what if it isn't?" "That was a stupid thing to say..." "I can see it now..." That again added to my uncertainty surrounding the direction the call was going. After a few minutes in I was assured that it was Jesse and I changed direction. The way he called into the show was uncalled for and I expressed my displeasure when I muted him. When I come on ths board I use my real name, my real photo and introduce myself. "I respect the House" That is all I ask of anyone. I wasn't being hostile or looking to control but wanting to build a hedge for our listeners. You are right we use a different hermenutic and not being fully informed on Jesse, Kerrigan and John's position (correct me if I'm wrong but they also have variances among themselves) as well as not being prepared for a debate made the discussion more challenging - Yes that was nervous laughter you heard given the nature (no pun intended) of the call can you really fault me? Though we use the same words we speak differently of Headship , the Attonement, Sanctification, Justification, Security, etc. Our view of Psalms, Genesis, Romans and various other sections are vastly different. We can't even agree on the simple historic use of the word heritic! To give a proper defense we must define terms or we misrepresent the other side and argue against strawmen. That is unprofitable and something I don't want to do. As for the statement regarding the tone of all parties involved I must expound. Many people misunderstand my passion in debate as anger or defensiveness which it is not. I have often been told that I am not loving enough when it comes to my preaching and that I often sound harsh. This is something that I am trying to diligently balance, not my attitude but rather the way I am perceived by others. I was not at all angry during the calls but I had to make a decision: Do I let them speak things freely that I consider to be heresy, do I disconnect the call altogether (which many called for me to do in the chat) or do I dig deeper so listeners and co-hosts can see just how deep the rabbit hole goes giving them a better understanding of what is actually the foundation to the discussion. We all in our circles know what most of OAO and Pinpoint believe - many of our listeners do not. We have a lot of history and I usually wouldn't be so forthright with a caller I wasn't familiar with. I am responsible for what goes out in our show and I take that responsibility very seriously - I will be accountable for it. So I switched to their view of security and perfection so people could get an understanding of what foundation they use to support their positions. Then I was back doored by 3 additional calls all from different phones from men who were all in the same room! Guys I'm doing a call in radio show are we not friends? Again was that really necessary? Was I to take that as a peacful encounter or a calculated engagement? Kerrigan was surprised to know I knew his voice... Would he have introduced himself? You make the call but I understood it to not be in good taste at best. I guess when you open yourself up to the world you must be open to ridicule. Jude 3 calls us to "contend earnestly for the faith" (I will refrain from going into a discussion on the greek in that verse) that was all I was doing. I cannot be held liable for the way it was perceived by others. Again if it causes others to stumble or it allows for the unbelieving to mock then to that I am accountable and I try diligently to balance it. Maybe I was wrong for not disconnecting the call? Maybe I should give more validity to what my wife calls as me being "contensious". I don't know, I was caught off guard and was unprepared for the debate, what can I say? I did my very best to be consistent and faithful to defending the faith given the situation and I believe I had some equally challenging questions for Jesse and Kerrigan as well. Jesse has a knack for coming in and nicely and peacefully debating theology with an agenda. My take is that he is looking for anywhere to get an audiance to hear his position (please correct me if I'm wrong?). Is our radio show to be that place? I have been approached to enter into a formal debate 3 times since the show. Now I am faced with do I go forward with it? Will it be profitable? Will giving others an opportunity to share their position over the air freely on our show be worth it in the long run? These questions I have yet to come to a conclusion on. With that said I look forward with great anticipation as well as reservation in where this will lead. Will we convince eachother? I doubt it so it boils down to how profitable it will be to the body of Christ. Steve thanks for your comments. I appriciate and highly respect your approach to debating theology. I greatly enjoyed our discussion regarding Reformed Theology and look forward to another opportunity to discuss theology in the future. You are always welcome to call into the show. Just make sure to introduce yourself.... Others, many of you don't know me so please try not to nake generalizations regarding me or what I hold to. If you really want to know you are always free to PM or email me any time and I'd be happy to share so that if you would like to refute my theological convictions you can do in from an informed position. Jesse, John and Kerrigan - Know that I love you guys and it is unfortunate that we are so divided that we will never be able to rock a campus together. That is most disappointing because as preachers I highly respect and value your work in the ministry. However one of us is wrong and doctrine divides. Jesse also mentioning the Library of Theology was my pleasure! I'm sure others as well as myself will find it benefical. After all how can we refute you if we don't know what you believe? In Christ, Paul P.S. Man, I write so much better than I debate!
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Jul 25, 2008 6:24:49 GMT -5
Paul we love you too We did not plan or gather the warhorses before Jesse or Kerrigan called. They had not done any preparation other than: 1. remembering that you had a show going that night 2. studying to show themselves approved. 3. I prayed quite a lot during the show as I cowered in the corner It should be mentioned here that many brothers should examine thier theology to see if it is a tradition of men or the truth according to Jesus. Many have been led astray, many have shipwrecked their faith, many have gone a way that is not of God. God is immutable, He doesn't change but we must be changed in order to serve Him properly. I find as I share my faith that the lost, they give a hearty Amen to Total Depravity and original sin! Their reasoning then allows them to not be responsible for thier wickedness before God. This should never be!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jul 25, 2008 7:09:51 GMT -5
Hey Paul! Glad you joined the discussion brother! I hope that you know and understand that there were no evil intentions on our part. We got home late from preaching, I found out that you were doing a show on Total Depravity and thought it would be cool if one of us called in. We weren't necessarily calling in to refute your view or have a debate, but just to see if we could challenge you a little bit. I guess I don't understand what you expect when you have a radio show that anyone and everyone can listen to. Are you expecting to get no challenges or to just have people who agree with you call in? That makes no sense. I don't think that any radio call-in show can reasonably expect that.
When it comes to your tone and how you acted towards Jesse, I thought you were a little unloving. BUT, when thinking about it after the show, I can see WHY you acted in such a way. It really was no big deal brother. I'm just glad that you were nice to me. ;D Oh, and by the way, I was going to tell you my name...from the beginning. As has been already stated, the Pelagius thing was just a joke. It seems kind of silly to keep bringing that up as if Jesse was sinning or trying to be deceitful. You even acknowledged this during the show. He wasn't trying to hide or anything. Anyway, I look forward to a possible debate. Hey, if you really think you have the Truth, how can it hurt? God Bless brother...
|
|
|
Post by Paul A. Kaiser on Jul 25, 2008 11:55:41 GMT -5
We did not plan or gather the warhorses before Jesse or Kerrigan called. They had not done any preparation other than: 1. remembering that you had a show going that night 2. studying to show themselves approved. 3. I prayed quite a lot during the show as I cowered in the corner John - Please allow me to clarify.... I am not insuating that there was some mallicious plot to bait Paul Kaiser. Like stated previously the way we entered into the call was a little unnerving. It was a lesson well learned. I find as I share my faith that the lost, they give a hearty Amen to Total Depravity and original sin! Their reasoning then allows them to not be responsible for thier wickedness before God. This should never be! Ones improper understanding and misapplication of a doctrine doesn't make it wrong. We both agree and wholeheartredly refute Antinomianism and the Carnal Christian heresy. We are very accountable to the commands of God. This is the error that many make. I'm sure in preaching against and denying original sin you still find that others are willing to find numerous ways to justify themselves. I can see how not holding to original sin can make it easier to call sinners to holiness in the open air but I don't think that is reasonable justification to say that the doctrine is wrong. Hey Paul! Glad you joined the discussion brother! I hope that you know and understand that there were no evil intentions on our part. We got home late from preaching, I found out that you were doing a show on Total Depravity and thought it would be cool if one of us called in. We weren't necessarily calling in to refute your view or have a debate, but just to see if we could challenge you a little bit. I guess I don't understand what you expect when you have a radio show that anyone and everyone can listen to. Are you expecting to get no challenges or to just have people who agree with you call in? That makes no sense. I don't think that any radio call-in show can reasonably expect that. Kerrigan - I do expect callers to call in and disagree and yes it would be unreasonable to expect those who disagree not to call in and I do not question your motives, as I expressed on the show. However knowing the given nature of our theological perspectives, differences, and the history of our relationships it would have been best for Jesse to let me know who he was prior to the call. That's all I'm trying to say. Can you honestly tell me the thought... "He's gonna be surprised..." didn't cross your mind? Again, I do understand it was all in good clean fun. When it comes to your tone and how you acted towards Jesse, I thought you were a little unloving. BUT, when thinking about it after the show, I can see WHY you acted in such a way. It really was no big deal brother. I'm just glad that you were nice to me. ;D Oh, and by the way, I was going to tell you my name...from the beginning. As has been already stated, the Pelagius thing was just a joke. It seems kind of silly to keep bringing that up as if Jesse was sinning or trying to be deceitful. You even acknowledged this during the show. He wasn't trying to hide or anything. No, it wasn't a big deal and I haven't made the claim that he was in sin over a simple joke that I was taken back by. This is the first time I have mentioned it outside of the show so I don't feel I am continually bringing it up. I just wanted to correct the understanding that some have that I was overtly angry or that I was angry for someone challenging my views. Even you state that I was "unloving", a misunderstanding that I get from many including my wife. Just last week I was deliberately overlooked by a Sister for an outreach in our area because of how people, new evangelists in particular, would perceive me. Causes me to further examine myself and continually try to balance my passion with how I am perceived. Again the approach caught me off guard and made the rest of the call with Jesse a little unsettling. Yes, after I knew it was you I was able to regroup and approach your call better. The uncertainty was removed. That's all I'm saying. Anyway, I look forward to a possible debate. Hey, if you really think you have the Truth, how can it hurt? God Bless brother... That is a question that is left to be decided. How proffitable will it be...? Thanks again for hearing me out. In Christ, Paul
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jul 25, 2008 12:35:35 GMT -5
I don't think a "debate" would be very profitable unless, as Paul said, there's a general understanding of how people are using their terms. For instance, Jesse talks alot about the difference between moral depravity and metaphysical depravity or moral depravity vs a constitutional depravity. In my opinion not many people have thought of original sin in these terms so they miss what he's trying to say. Unless there's time to really explain the differences between the views it just sounds like confusion. That's my perception of the above program anyway. Many also don't understand that Jesse and Kerrigan hold to a total depravity perspective but that this is not inherited but acquired. The Wesleyan theologians believe that acquired depravity (depravity acquired through our choices) is cleansed away at regeneration - this they call initial sanctification. But they hold that inherited depravity remains until there's a 2nd work of grace - entire sanctification - in which inherited depravity is erradicated. If I understand Jesse's theology on this point he would reject inherited depravity and hold to only acquired depravity. This acquired depravity is cleansed away at regeneration / sanctification / justification. Jesse, correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, if it's not clear where Jesse's coming from there will be endless arguments that man is depraved that never deal with the actual issue he has a problem with. Namely, inherited depravity.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2008 14:51:19 GMT -5
Yes there is no doubt that when it comes to terms and definitions, there is disagreement. And that is precisely what a debate is about. A debate is when two people have different opinions, possibly not even any common ground, yet they will both share their own views and also examine the view of their opponent. You need disagreement in order to have a debate. You don't need agreement in order to have a debate. You simply need an understanding of each others positions.
We cannot even begin to talk about the moral character of man or how man comes by this moral character until we define what moral character is. Is moral character a choice or is it a constitution, for example. This also ties into the nature of sin. Is sin a choice or is sin a constitution? etc. Also, what is the definition of a sinner? Is a sinner someone who chooses to sin?
But these types of questions would be exactly what a debate would be about. It would be great to debate whether or not a person is "born a sinner". That is where the debate really begins, on this fundamental question. But we would have to start by defining what a sinner is.
This is how it would look:
- We would define what we believe a sinner is. - They would define what they believe a sinner is. - We each would give Biblical support for our positions. - We both would challenge and question each others positions. - Then we both could defend our positions. - And the audience can decide which position they agree with.
No doubt, it would be helpful if Paul knew our position better. Then he would know how to refute it, etc. Well, this is Paul's lucky day. Our position is very simple. So it shouldn't take a long time to study it and understand it.
Here is our position in a nut shell:
A murderer is someone who chooses to murder. A liar is someone who chooses to lie. A thief is someone who chooses to steal. And a sinner is someone who chooses to sin.
So if we debate the issue of whether or not a person is born a sinner or not, our position is very simple. You cannot be born a sinner because a sinner, by definition, is someone who chooses to sin once they reach the age of accountability. And sin is not physical, it is moral; sin is not a substance, sin is a choice. A sinner is someone who chooses to sin; a sinner is someone who chooses to violate the moral law of God.
We are born capable of becoming sinners. We are born with temptation. But we are not born with sin. We are not born sinners. A sinner is someone who knows right from and wrong and deliberately chooses to do what he knows to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Jul 27, 2008 15:20:31 GMT -5
Jesse do people "choose to sin" immediately once they reach the age of accountability? Or is there a gap of time between the person reaching the age of accountability and their first sin? And where does the person go, heaven or hell, if they die in that gap of time?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2008 15:51:11 GMT -5
"All sin can be resolved into a wrong ultimate supreme choice to seek our own happiness supremely, which involves our whole personality and is persisted in without virtuous interruptions from the dawn of moral accountability." Gordon Olson (The Truth Shall Set You Free, page 71)
"BEFORE CONVERSION, MAN IS TOTALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY SINFUL. This wrong voluntary purpose of life or wrong motive of heart, involving our whole personality, is persisted in without virtuous interruptions, from the dawn of moral accountability. We have chosen to live a life of selfishness which reigns supreme until undone by exposure to the cross of Christ. There is no admixture of good or evil, no interruptions when virtue reigns, no suspensions of selfish supremacy. Sinful indulgence in one form or another is continuous." Gordon Olson (Truth Shall Set You Free, page 72)
"This supreme selfish choice is persisted in without virtuous interruptions from the dawn of moral accountability until the awakening of genuine repentance. Sinful indulgence in one form or another is continuous: Is. 64:6; Mt. 6:5; Ro. 3:10-12" Gordon Olson (Truth Shall Set You Free, page 123)
"We had resisted this sum total of moral illumination from the dawn of our moral accountability—until the moment of our conversion, when we submitted to the whole en-masse and took appropriate action to enter into the beckoning mercy of God." Gordon Olson (Truth Shall Set You Free, page 166)
"Again, Psa. lviii. 3. The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Upon this text I remark - That it has been quoted at one time to establish the doctrine of a sinful nature, and at another to prove that infants commit actual sin from the very day and hour of their birth. But certainly no such use can be legitimately made of this text. It does not affirm anything of a sinful nature, but this has been inferred from what it does affirm, that the wicked are estranged from their birth. But does this mean, that they are really and literally estranged from the day and hour of their birth, and that they really "go astray the very day they are born, speaking lies?" This every one knows to be contrary to fact. The text cannot then be pressed to the letter. What then does it mean? It must mean, like the text last examined, that the wicked are estranged and go astray from the commencement of their moral agency. If it means more than this, it would contradict other plain passages of scripture. It affirms, in strong, graphic, and poetic language, the fact, that the first moral conduct and character of children is sinful. This is all that in truth it can assert, and it doubtless dates the beginning of their moral depravity at a very early period, and expresses it in very strong language, as if it were literally from the hour of birth. But when it adds, that they go astray speaking lies, we know that this is not, and cannot be, literally taken, for, as every one knows, children do not speak at all from their birth. Should we understand the Psalmist as affirming, that children go astray as soon as they go at all, and speak lies as soon as they speak at all, this would not prove that their nature was in itself sinful, but might well consist with the theory that their physical depravity, together with their circumstances of temptation, led them into selfishness, from the very first moment of their moral existence." Charles Finney (Lectures on Theology, page 333)
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Jul 27, 2008 16:21:03 GMT -5
What does this mean? Break it down for me in traditional Jesse style...
This means this. This does not mean that. Neither does this mean the other. This means this. etc
I'm not being silly. I actually like that style. Its much easier to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2008 17:04:21 GMT -5
As soon as a person knows right from wrong (age of accountability) they immediately do what they know is wrong. At the dawn of moral agency, men choose to be sinners. And until they are converted, they are totally morally depraved without any virtuous interruptions.
The real question is this, "Why do all men choose to be sinners at the age of accountability?"
Here are some explanations:
FROM CHARLES FINNEY:
2. All moral depravity commences in substantially the same way. Proof:
(1.) The impulses of the sensibility are developed, and gradually commencing from the birth, and depending on physical development and birth.
(2.) The first acts of will are in obedience to these.
(3.) Self-gratification is the rule of action previous to the developement of reason.
(4.) No resistance is offered to the will's indulgence of appetite, until a habit of self-indulgence is formed.
(5.) When reason affirms moral obligation, it finds the will in a state of habitual and constant committal to the impulses of the sensibility.
(6.) The demands of the sensibility have become more and more despotic every hour of indulgence.
(7.) In this state of things, unless the Holy Spirit interpose, the idea of moral obligation will be but dimly developed.
(8.) The will of course rejects the bidding of reason, and cleaves to self-indulgence.
(9.) This is the settling of a fundamental, question. It is deciding in favour of appetite, against the claims of conscience and of God.
(10.) Light once rejected, can be afterwards more easily resisted, until it is nearly excluded altogether.
(11.) Selfishness confirms, and strengthens, and perpetuates itself by a natural process. It grows with the sinner's growth, and strengthens with his strength; and will do so for ever, unless overcome by the Holy Spirit through the truth,
(Lectures on Systematic Theology, page 345-346)
FROM GORDON OLSON:
THE UNIVERSALITY OF SIN IN THE WORLD IS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS FOLLOWS:
1. Hereditary physical tendencies tend toward softness and self-sympathy, beginning early in life....
2. Physical consciousness and experiences through the five senses are cultivated prior to the dawn of moral accountability.
3. Moral influences of our immediate and social environment lead us to choose similar habits of life by imitation and often persuasion (I Pe. 1:18).
4. At the dawn of moral accountability, as obligation to God and other beings is beginning to be perceived, moral enlightenment appears to make a dim impact because of our already established manner of living.
5. The will now determines to press on in this self-gratification against these new realizations, the habit of self -indulgence now becoming sinful and involves new concentrations in its pursuit (Is. 53:6; Ro. 3:23; I Pe. 2:25).
(The Truth Shall Set You Free, page 79-80)
FROM WINKIE PRATNEY:
WHY DO CHILDREN SIN?
How, then does a child sin! One does not have to teach a child to do wrong. The explanation becomes clear if we carefully consider the development of a man. A baby enters the world as the object of its parent's fondness, unceasing care, and concession by those who guard it. In these circumstances, the natural, inherited appetites are Just developed; and the child's natural love of conscious freedom begins to express itself. The feelings develop long before the reason, and both are deeply entrenched before the spirit begins to awaken to the claims of God. Much depends at this point on the parents. If they are faithful in their duty to God, they must train their child to yield up its own way when that self- willed way will interfere with the happiness of others. The child will learn at first obedience to its parents only in a love/discipline relationship; it is here that the habit of response to authority must be ingrained in the child's soul, so that later, when God opens up the spiritual understanding, the child will surrender to Him (1 Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 6:20-2 3; 10: 17; 13:18; 15:5;31-32; Ephesians 6: 1; Colossians 3:20).
Since the feelings develop before the reason and conscience, the will begins to form the habit of obeying desire, which deepens every day. The obvious consequence is that self indulgence becomes the master principle in the soul of the child long before it can understand that this self-indulgence will interfere with the right or happiness of others.
This repeated bias grows, stronger each day before a knowledge of right or duty could possibly have entered the mind. Finally, the moment of true moral responsibility arrives.
The child is now old enough to understand wrong. (This will probably be earlier in a Christian home than in a non-Christian one.) Does the child approach this test in a perfectly neutral state? If Adam, in the maturity of his reason, with full consciousness of the morality of his actions could give in to such temptation, is there any doubt that a child will not? The moment that child chooses selfishly, it sins. From this point on (and NOT before) God holds the child responsible for its own actions and destiny. It is significant that all words of the Lord to sinners begin FROM THEIR YOUTH, and NOT from birth, as some have supposed.
(Youth Aflame, page 89-90)
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Jul 27, 2008 17:17:15 GMT -5
So you are saying that there is no time between a person becoming accountable and him choosing to sin? 100 out of 100 people sin immediately as soon as they become accountable with no amount of time in between? Not even 5 seconds? Nothing? Accountability and guilt are simultaneous? Hmm... This sounds like you are saying that people become accountable while enslaved to sin just not guilty of it? I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2008 19:11:09 GMT -5
I'm saying that long before the age of accountability is reached, the child develops the habit of self-indulgence, fulfilling the desires of his flesh. This is because the sensibilities develop long before the reason develops. So the will serves the sensibilities for an extended period of time and develops a habit of self-indulgence.
And as soon as he reaches the age of accountability, when the reason is developed, he simply chooses to continue on in his well established habit. This self-indulgence was not sin before the age of accountability, but after the age of accountability, now it becomes sin. So a person becomes a sinner by choice as soon as they reach the age of accountability.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Jul 27, 2008 19:47:21 GMT -5
So an uncondemned sinner becomes a condemned sinner immediately once he reaches the age of accountability by choice yet there is no way for him to choose otherwise because he is already a slave to sin? It seems almost like what guarantees his "choice" at the age of accountability was a choice to sin that he made before he was accountable. Almost like its a case of a child who is not accountable makes a choice that guarantees his guilt immediately once he becomes accountable. Or in other words, it seems that you are saying the deal is sealed way before he is held accountable. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2008 21:08:59 GMT -5
An innocent child reaches an age when he knows right from wrong. Then, by free will choice, he chooses to do what he knows is wrong. He doesn't have to do it. But he chooses to do it. And because he knows better, he is guilty and accountable.
An innocent child becomes a guilty sinner at the age of accountability. An individual chooses to serve sin by their own free will. Nobody ever has to be a sinner. But all men have chosen to become sinners.
You are not born a guilty sinner. You are born an innocent baby. But through your own free will choices, once you know right from wrong, you make yourself a guilty sinner.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Jul 27, 2008 21:36:42 GMT -5
But wait Jesse. You said "that long before the age of accountability is reached, the child develops the habit of self-indulgence, fulfilling the desires of his flesh." Then you also quoted Winkie Pratney further explanation that "the obvious consequence is that self indulgence becomes the master principle in the soul of the child". Right? And then immediately, with no time passing in between, as he does become accountable, 100 out of 100 times, he chooses to sin, immediately, at the same instance as he becomes accountable. Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. It seems to me like you are saying that the matter was settled long before the age of accountability. Back around the time his self-indulgence became "the master principle in the soul of the child".
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jul 27, 2008 21:40:58 GMT -5
Adiel, if you disagree with Jesse, I'd like to hear the alternatives. Do you believe that babies are born sinners and made sinners by God while they are in their mother's womb? Do you believe they are made sinners because of some choice that great-great-great grandpa Adam made? I guess what I am saying is that it seems like you are trying to make Jesse's position (and consequently mine) sound foolish. I think that the position that the Calvinists have taken is infinitely more foolish and no where near Biblical...
Paul, as far as the debate is concerned, I echo what Jesse said. We were just talking about this the other day. If we agree on everything, what is the point of the debate? You present your side, we present our side, you try to prove our side is wrong from Scripture, we try to prove your side is wrong from Scripture and then let the audience decide for themselves. As I said before, if you have the Truth their should be no problem. It should come through so clearly that there would be no confusion. But not debating or not taking calls on your show seems to imply that you aren't able to defend your position from Scripture. No trying to be mean, just honest brother. Truth stands-up under scrutiny! That's why I'm willing to go onto college campuses and let the students ask any question they like. I don't fear the lies! I don't trust in my ability, I trust that the Truth will shine through!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2008 21:42:28 GMT -5
A child, before he knows better, chooses a life of self-indulgence. But this is not sinful. He is innocent because he doesn't know any better. But then a child, once he knows betters, continues to choose a life of self-indulgence. Now it is sinful. Once the conscience is developed and the will chooses to obey lust instead of conscience, then it is sin. But the will is always free to choose between obedience or disobedience, the will is always free to choose between obeying our conscience or the desires of the flesh.
All men could choose to obey their conscience, instead of the lusts of their flesh. But all men have chosen to be sinners. All men have chosen to disobey their conscience. All men have chosen to obey the lusts of their flesh.
This is a matter of fact: all men have chosen to sin, all men have chosen to be sinners.
The will cannot be in a state of indifference. Once the mind perceives right from wrong, the will must choose between right or wrong. So there can be no "gap" between the age of accountability and becoming a sinner. As soon as the mind knows right from wrong, the will immediately chooses. And the sad truth is, all men have chosen to sin and to become sinners.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jul 27, 2008 21:46:07 GMT -5
That is a very good point. If you are going to promote Calvinism, you should be able to defend Calvinism. And if you are not able to defend Calvinism, you should reconsider whether or not you should be promoting Calvinism. You should never promote anything that you cannot defend.
I personally will not teach anything unless I can thoroughly defend it reasonably and scripturally. This is extremely important since teachers will have a stricter judgment.
Just some things to consider.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jul 27, 2008 22:58:28 GMT -5
So an uncondemned sinner becomes a condemned sinner immediately once he reaches the age of accountability by choice yet there is no way for him to choose otherwise because he is already a slave to sin? Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?If the "newly accountable child" does not love Christ, he/she will obey whom he/she loves instead, that would be him/herself. The effections of our will effects individual choices that we make. The choice that you make will naturally follow your effections. Consequently, if you love yourself or the world more than the one commanding you, you cannot consistently do things that please the commander. Your decisions are in bondage to your effections so that you only do what you have favor towards. Love God, hate sin; Love yourself and the world, hate God. It only makes sence if the "newly accountable child" does not have eternal life before he/she become accountable, a child born and brougt up not knowing God, he/she will continue to life according to the flesh. However, On the other hand, a child born brought up knowing Christ, which is eternal life, and becomes accountable for its own actions will be able to follow after the spirit that the righteous requirements of the Law would be fulfilled because of his love for God(Rom 8:4, Gal 5:16) John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandmentsThis is why I believe perents that bring their childeren up with out Christ are as teachers, receiving the greater condemnation(James 3:1). Thank God for His great mercy and longsuffering!!!
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Aug 1, 2008 23:19:26 GMT -5
Kerrigan,
Are babies born God-centered or self-centered?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 2, 2008 10:09:52 GMT -5
I'm not Kerrigan, but I would like to answer the question.
Being "God-centered" or "self-centered" are choices of the will. They are not states of the body, but states of the will.
Therefore, you cannot be born God-centered or self-centered. You could be born, and then choose these things after you are born. But you cannot be born in this states. These are states of the will.
It's like saying, "Are babies born morally good or evil?" This is a false dilemma. The answer is neither. Morally, good and evil are choices of the will, they are voluntary states of the will. So you cannot be born that way. You have to be born innocent and then you can choose to be good or evil.
My understanding of human development is that we are born as innocent babies, without any guilt since we have not yet made any choices. In infancy, our conscience is not fully developed. But our flesh, body, or physical desires and appetites are already in existence. So children seek to gratify their natural desires. They don't know anything about God and duty. They have no sense of responsibility until the age of accountability. And once they reach that age, when they know right from wrong because their conscience is developed, they choose to continue to serve themselves. But this time it is sin because they no better.
So babies are born innocent with natural desires. But at the age of accountability, all men choose to serve themselves, all men choose to gratify their natural desires in a forbidden and illegal manner.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Aug 2, 2008 10:24:02 GMT -5
How do you interpret:
I understand it to mean that the wicked are estranged "from the womb", that they go astray as "soon as they be born" speaking lies. How do you understand it?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Aug 2, 2008 10:46:42 GMT -5
So babies are born innocent with natural desires. But at the age of accountability, immediately, at the same exact point in time, simultaneously, all men, without exception 100% of the time "choose " to serve themselves in strict accordance with "the habit of self-indulgence and fulfilling the desires of his flesh" that is "the master principle" in their pre-accountable souls... Correct? **I added the words in red in accordance with what Jesse has previously stated in this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 2, 2008 11:55:44 GMT -5
Adiel,
This was my "Reply #16" on page one:
Ps. 58:3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
A. This is a poetic book which verses can be taken figuratively or literally.
B. The context of this passage requires a figurative interpretation.
(1.) The entire chapter is figurative; the surrounding verses are all poetic. It talks of men being like serpents and deaf adders (vs. 4), of God breaking the teeth of the young lions (vs. 6), men melting away like running water (vs.7), God bending his bow to shoot arrows (vs. 7), men passing away as a snail which melts (vs. 8), and God destroying like a whirlwind (vs. 9).
(2.) It says that children speak lies from the womb.
(3.) Infants do not know how to speak as soon as they are born.
(4.) Therefore, this passage is poetic or figurative.
C. The obvious meaning of this passage is that individuals choose to sin at a very early age, from the dawn of their moral agency, and the first sin which children usually commit is lying.
(Also note that it says child start to sin after they are born; "from the womb" "astray as soon as they are born". They did not "sin in Adam" or in the womb since babies in the womb have not yet made any choices according to Romans 9:11. You can only choose to sin after you are born).
=================================
WHAT A SINNER IS:
1. A sinner is someone who personally and deliberately chooses to sin (Gen. 6:12; Exo. 32:7; Deut. 9:12; 32:5; 1 Sam. 3:13; Jdg. 2:19; Isa. 66:3; Hos. 9:9; Ps. 14:2-3; Isa. 53:6; Ecc. 7:29; Zep. 3:7; Matt. 12:34-35; 15:17-20; Mk. 7:15, 21-22; Lk. 6:45; Rom. 3:23).
A. Sinners cannot be born that way, since infants have not made any choices yet (Rom. 9:11).
B. Morally, all men are born innocent (2 Kng. 21:16; 24:4; Jer. 13:26-27; Matt. 18:3). Then they choose to become filthy (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:12).
C. Individuals are innocent until the age of accountability, which is the age of reason, when they know right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16), and choose to do what they know is wrong (Jas. 4:17).
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Aug 2, 2008 12:34:43 GMT -5
So babies are born innocent with natural desires. But at the age of accountability, immediately, at the same exact point in time, simultaneously, all men, without exception 100% of the time "choose " to serve themselves in strict accordance with their innocent "habit of self-indulgence and fulfilling the desires of his flesh" that is "the master principle" in their pre-accountable souls... Correct? **I added the words in red in accordance with what Jesse has previously stated in this conversation. Is this a correct estimation of your belief? (I also made a small change to the words in red)
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Aug 2, 2008 12:56:39 GMT -5
Brother Adiel, Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose a young person, say eleven years old lost their anger and shot thier brother in the head with their fathers handgun? Does the earthly law hold them accountable yet? You know the answer. Until there comes an age of accoutabitlity to the law of the land, justice will not be applied. Where does that judicial idea come from? God. It is not that a young person or child can not 'sin' but that God overlooks responsibility for that sin until abstract understanding or comprehension of those crimes can be realized. Once realization by maturity comes then God holds them accoutable. No there would not be any gap of time between the before and the after as you are alluding.
Does God hold the mentally handicapped responsible for sin, even if they are past the age of accountability?
Will you please offer your alternatives about these issues as Kerrigan has already asked?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Adiel on Aug 2, 2008 13:10:07 GMT -5
Brother Adiel, Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose a young person, say eleven years old lost their anger and shot thier brother in the head with their fathers handgun? Does the earthly law hold them accountable yet? You know the answer. Until there comes an age of accoutabitlity to the law of the land, justice will not be applied. Where does that judicial idea come from? God. It is not that a young person or child can not 'sin' but that God overlooks responsibility for that sin until abstract understanding or comprehension of those crimes can be realized. Once realization by maturity comes then God holds them accoutable. No there would not be any gap of time between the before and the after as you are alluding. Does God hold the mentally handicapped responsible for sin, even if they are past the age of accountability? Hi John, Are you saying that the pre-accountable child is indeed sinful before the age of accountability just not held responsible (until he does reach the age of accountability at which time he will be held accountable for personal sins)? Please explain. Oh, and I will provide what I believe the Scripture teaches regarding this soon enough. For now I'm just trying to understand others' views.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Aug 2, 2008 13:21:10 GMT -5
Hi Brother Adiel, I think you have an understanding. Jesse has given you multitudes of scriptures. Will you explain your alternative position now?
|
|