Calvinism and God's love for the cosmos.

[Anon1379]

Can u show me a verse that says the lost unconditionally hate God.

Good grief. How many times do I have to quote Romans 8 back to you?

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom. 8:7).

Do you see any conditions or qualifications to that satement in that verse, or in the remainder of that passage? No? Unconditional. QED.

I have raised Cornelius, Paul, and the rich young ruler all who did not hate God.

Narrative passages don't trump explicitly didactic ones. They need to be understood in light of what is explicitly taught.

You have not actually answered any of them.

Cornelius

Paul

It's true I haven't discussed the rich young ruler, but since you haven't adequately rebutted what I have said about Cornelius and Paul, I fail to see what he might add to the discussion that they don't.

You are confusing our flesh with our person and actions in Romans 8. Romans 8:4-5 (LEB):  "For those who are living according to the flesh are intent on the things of the flesh, but those who are living according to the Spirit are intent on the things of the Spirit." As you can see flesh and person are separate. You state they are one and the same and while they are combined they aren't the same. Just as I can live for God under salvation, it does not mean that I will always each and every moment of every day do so. But overall a Christian will live for the Spirit. Overall a lost person will serve his flesh. It is his master. It has control over him. This does not mean his flesh is in absolute control, as if it was everyone would be worse than Hitler.

Romans 2:14?16 (LEB): For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, although they* do not have the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts one after another accusing or even defending them on the day when God judges the secret things of people, according to my gospel, through Christ Jesus.

Those who are lost still have a conscious, and "do by nature the things of the law, these, although they do not have the law." This is why Cornelius could give to the poor. This is why Catholics today do not hate God. They may hate his message, and his demands but they do not hate God himself. As Hammond pointed out in his analogy of a football player (no analogy is perfect) that you can be hostile to a team and not hate them. You can fight over every inch of ground in football, but that doesn't mean you hate the team or it's players (well you might). The fact that we have a conscience and act on it shows we are not as totally depraved as Calvinist make it seem. Now I'm in no way shape or form trying to say man is good, and can be good. The lost man abides under the wrath of God. The lost man would do a whole lot more sin if given the chance. But this does not mean every lost man will act on that sin if given the chance. He can still quench his flesh, albeit it certainly would be very often and it won't be permanent. Lost people can break addiction of drugs and alcohol. Lost people can choose to not murder people. However, just like a Christian sinning is not his true nature, a lost person doing good is not his true nature.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

(or as your "bible" says, hostility)

Can we have one discussion without KJV only people spouting off on other versions? Hostile is a very adequate translation. Hostility is even in the definition of enmity.

 

[HammondCheese]

(or as your "bible" says, hostility)

Can we have one discussion without KJV only people spouting off on other versions? Hostile is a very adequate translation. Hostility is even in the definition of enmity.

I conceded that fact.  I just don't like to miss an opportunity to provoke RansomBathwater by "spouting" off.  Haha

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Anon1379]

We are however getting of topic. The fact that Christ died for the lost shows that He loves them.  Now please I would love to see someone try to defend limited atonement.

 

[Ransom]

You are confusing our flesh with our person and actions in Romans 8.

No, I am using "the flesh" according to its definition: the sinful nature. The same word has both literal and figurative uses, but in Romans 8, Paul is not talking about literal flesh. To live in the flesh is to live according to one's sinful nature and to pursue its desires. Hence the fleshly person is hostile to God. He cannot honestly claim to love God while pursuing that which is antithetical to God.

As you can see flesh and person are separate.

Explain how a person and his nature can be separate. Have you ever met a person without a nature, or vice versa? No, me either.

Overall a lost person will serve his flesh.It is his master.

And therefore, someone living for the flesh cannot love God, because he cannot serve two masters. As Jesus said, he will hate one and love the other. If he loves his sin, he hates God.

 

[Anon1379]

You are confusing our flesh with our person and actions in Romans 8.

No, I am using "the flesh" according to its definition: the sinful nature. The same word has both literal and figurative uses, but in Romans 8, Paul is not talking about literal flesh. To live in the flesh is to live according to one's sinful nature and to pursue its desires. Hence the fleshly person is hostile to God. He cannot honestly claim to love God while pursuing that which is antithetical to God.

As you can see flesh and person are separate.

Explain how a person and his nature can be separate. Have you ever met a person without a nature, or vice versa? No, me either.

Overall a lost person will serve his flesh.It is his master.

And therefore, someone living for the flesh cannot love God, because he cannot serve two masters. As Jesus said, he will hate one and love the other. If he loves his sin, he hates God.

I meant separate as in the individual is not literally the flesh. Flesh does not = individual's soul. Now they are combined in the sense that they both inhabit our body, but that is not what I was referring to. And just as I said, a lost person can quench his flesh in the same way a saved person can quench the Spirit. Although it is not natural for either person to do so. God gave every individual a conscience and that conscience will stop individuals from fulfilling every single desire of the flesh. As Romans 2 says we have a law written in our hearts. Then he stated that by nature the gentiles do things contained in the law. How could a totally depraved individual do by nature the things of the law. Total Depravity is a true Biblical doctrine, but depravity is not total inability. Our flesh is depraved in every aspect, but man is still made in the image of God and know right and wrong. If man was as totally depraved as Calvinism makes it seem like, human kind would murder everyone, everytime they are given a chance. Every single action would be sin. There would be no morally good actions. But that is not the case. When the natives in acts 28 were kind to Paul they were not sinning. A lost person can recognize his condition and ask God to save him. All it takes is faith. And faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

I meant separate as in the individual is not literally the flesh. Flesh does not = individual's soul.

I haven't said it did. What is the relevance of this?

And just as I said, a lost person can quench his flesh in the same way a saved person can quench the Spirit.

"Quenching the Spirit," however, is biblical (1 Thess. 5:19). This means, presumably, not to neglect the work that the Holy Spirit is doing in the church and the world. Where may I find the parallel passage concerning quenching the flesh?

Although it is not natural for either person to do so. God gave every individual a conscience and that conscience will stop individuals from fulfilling every single desire of the flesh.

Really? The Bible says that "to the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled" (Titus 1:15).

In fact, "they profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work" (v. 16). But wait--aren't you the one who keeps telling us that unbelievers may still sincerely love God?

As Romans 2 says we have a law written in our hearts.

And as Romans 2 says, those who have the law will be judged according to the law, because they cannot themselves obey the law. Pagans are hostile to God, and so are professing Jews who boast in the law.

How could a totally depraved individual do by nature the things of the law. . . . If man was as totally depraved as Calvinism makes it seem like, human kind would murder everyone, everytime they are given a chance. Every single action would be sin. There would be no morally good actions.

As I have already said:

"Total depravity" doesn't mean everyone is as evil as he can be or constitutionally incapable of morally good acts. It means no part of the total person has escaped corruption by sin. "Total" in this doctrine means extensive, not intensive.

A lost person can recognize his condition and ask God to save him.

Because all those metaphors the Bible uses about the human condition--dead, blind, imprisoned, lost, enslaved--don't really mean anything.

 

[ALAYMAN]

If it is an act of love to allow the freedom of choice (as opposed to coercion or compulsion) then how does the act of forced regeneration coalesce with that facet of love?

Thanks for the clarification.

The Bible describes the unregenerate as, variously, blind, enslaved, imprisoned, and dead. None of these conditions are such that the one suffering from them is empowered to change them. The blind cannot will themselves to see. The enslaved and imprisoned cannot choose to leave their bondage. The dead cannot decide to live. Was Lazarus "coerced" to be alive after he was dead? No, he had no will at all to be compelled against, because he was dead.

It's not "coercion" or "compulsion" to rescue someone from these dire circumstances. It is rendering help to the helpless.

Is it actually an act of love to allow free choice? That seems like an assumption to me. I'd say it's an act of love for God to extend mercy to those who, by his own laws, deserve none.

I track with the logic of Calvinism.  I'm strongly convinced that there's nothing good in me that deserves God's grace.  The thing that always sticks in my craw, or that I am not persuaded of, is that a human choice ("faith") is meritorious.  I know this is anecdotal (though I could cite some Biblical analogous illustration) but the proverbial seeker/agnostic comes to mind.  Plenty of people are in that position of saying "thou almost persuadest me", only to turn away, whilst there are those who fight through a long journey (ie, C.S. Lewis) who eventually succomb to the reality of the risen Christ.  From a Biblical perspective I see strongly compelling evidence for the doctrines of grace (particularly as it keeps in tact the glory of God and not man), but I am also persuaded that there are seemingly plenty of passages that speak to "whosoever".  In the end of the analysis, at least at this point, I think much ink is spilled and battles fought over the subject, but the ethical and moral implications of the gospel call more for my attention than such battles.

 

[Twisted]