>God will never leave me nor forsake meThen shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRXDYvpA020
To finish responding>>84558580>I believe that there is no free will, but that people are responsible anyway.I feel this contradicts where in the law it says, that an engaged woman who was raped wouldn't be put to death for adultery, because the breach wasn't her fault, but the rapist would be put to death, because it was his fault. God is the judge of all the Earth, and he wrote what is good in his eyes in his law. In addition; where it says that >The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.It's sin because we have free will to do it, or not to do it. Furthermore, the bible says (James 4:17)>Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.Sin arises from the knowledge of good and evil after all, because we know better, we are judged more harshly than animals, who have no understanding, nor conscience. (Genesis 3:11)>And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?To be made aware, comes with responsibility for our own sins. >The best example of this is that God makes it clear that he will avenge the sins of the fathers on the sons in the third and fourth generation of those who hate him.>This means that you are responsible for the sins of your father.I must again push against this. You are not responsible for the sins of your father. What do you receive from the sins of your parents is the circumstances that result from their sins (in your body, in your social station, in your environment, and in your reputation; as well as others). When Daniel was taken away to Babylon, he wasn't being punished for his sins, but he did inherit a worse circumstance. When it came to his own trial, he chose not to sin against God in eating of the kings meat.
>>84558601I appreciate the offer, but my speaking ability is quite low. My mind and mouth seem to never operate together these days.>>84558580 >Now - God also says that the son shall not die for the father, as punishment.>So there is a tension there:There is no tension here, the application is different. Sin is judged directly, but circumstances are inherited. If you're more diligent in study, your children will be better off than the kids of a lazy peer.>And that is exactly the same kind of tension as between sovereign will and moral will:I agree, in that I feel that following the appearance of a contradiction, further contradictions are being created.>This also has very practical consequences, for example when God sends war over a country because of the sins of said country, then by definition you will experience these consequences of war even though you did not commit the sins that happened that incited the LORD to anger.In allowing sins to continue in our communities unabated, we are probably at least somewhat guilty. I'm reminded of Phinehas stopping the plague. (Numbers 25:1-8).Because nations cannot go to hell, God must judge them on this Earth, as he does to saved Christians. >Anyone who says that having no free will frees you from responsibility understands nothing, and if he calls himself a Calvinist then that is exactly what is meant by hypercalvinism.I appreciate this at least, in future I will ask what confession they stand by, before writing them off.
>>84564932>>84565060If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.Leviticus 20:15 And The servant who knows the masters will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.Luke 12:47-48 The Bible is again more nuanced then you describe it:Knowledge of the law indeed make the sin more sinful. However not knowing does not remove the responsibility.And I quoted the passage with the animal in order to show that sin is a taint in and of itself. Sin inherently means in the original meaning of the word to miss the mark.And you do not really need to know what the mark is to miss it.However knowing what it is makes it even worse because you not only missed the mark, but also your intelligence failed to correct your error. In short you failed twice: once by desiring to sin, and once by having no self control and not loving God more then your desire.Adam and Eve also ate from the fruit before they gained the knowledge of good and evil.Therefore it seems somehow random if you say that its free will and they made that choice, because they had no knowledge of Good and evil; so how could they have reasonably made a good decision?My point however is that no Calvinist worth his salt will ever deny human responsibility. Again: I am not trying to win you to my side, I am just showing you how we understand responsibility.And that is not causal in the sense of: you are responsible because you caused this.But: you are responsible, because responsibility is a metaphysical relation and it is simply so.You are responsible for your children, and for your property, etc.
>>84558580>> The saved preacher>Thats actually donatism btw. Which is explicitly condemned as a heresy.I assume you mean this one "Council of Arles".Independent fundamental Baptists believe in something similar to Baptist successionism, this means we completely disregard any secular ruling, creed, council decision, etc, that arose from the catholic church. It's why we don't meddle extensively with theology or secular history, and just focus on the bible instead. >You can be saved even with an unsaved preacher.>Because its the word of God alone that saves.Without the word of God (whether you mean the Lord Jesus Christ or scripture), noone can be saved. The reason I said that noone can be saved without hearing the Gospel from a saved Christian mostly relates to what I will lay out below.>Every saved Christian has the Holy Ghost Romans 8:9 - But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.>Unsaved people cannot understand the bible 1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.>Another easy one Acts 8:30-31 - And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.>Scripture is spiritual John 6:63 - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.>Without a preacher, no salvation will occur, but also those preachers are sent by Churches (Romans 10:14-15)Since it's a spiritual matter, and you receive the Spirit after salvation, and you can't understand it without the Spirit, mechanically means you need someone with the Spirit indwelling.
>>84564932The problem is also that you are basing the moral judgment of a situation based on the civil law of Israel. And especially such aspects which lower punishments in certain circumstances.If you were to accept all such arguments unconditionally then polygamy and divorce are morally correct as well.But I would argue in these cases regardless that your examples do not concern the question of free will in the slightest.Having no free will does not mean that God judges you somehow differently. I agree that God clearly does not see a woman who is raped as someone who sinned. I totally view the situation in the same way as you.I think you have a wrong understanding what it means to have no free will.It basically comes down to Jeremiah 17:Trecherous is the heart and desperately wicked; who can know it? I am the lord who trails hearts and minds, to give everyone according to his deeds.What I believe is that sin fundamentally comes from the heart. As the Bible states multiple times.And God judges people by their heart primarily.And what having no free will means is essentially this:Human beings will always follow their heart and their mind.But all those things are tainted by sin.It is essentially a bad tree that always produces bad fruit.Having no free will means that you can not make yourself want something that you dont want. You can still do what you want, clearly.But what you want is evil, and even if you do seemingly good things, they are wicked because they come from a godless motivation - unless God saves you.Therefore the woman who is raped? She didnt do according to her heart - be it good or bad, therefore there is no sin.Hope that clarifies it.
>>84565186>If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.>Leviticus 20:15This is for hygiene purposes (risks of zoonotic disease), the animal isn't being condemned here. The verse about animals which kill bystanders would be a stronger argument.>And>And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.>But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.>Luke 12:47-48I feel this supports my argument, Because he could have found out his masters will (because we have free agency). I'm emboldened in this feeling because the purpose of the parable is about Christ's return. >Adam and Eve also ate from the fruit before they gained the knowledge of good and evil.>Therefore it seems somehow random if you say that its free will and they made that choice, because they had no knowledge of Good and evil; so how could they have reasonably made a good decision?It is free will, and they did make that choice (although Eve was tricked by the serpent, and only Adam ate it willingly)Does "the age of accountability" exist as a doctrine in your sect, or do you baptize infants? They were ignorant, like children are (relating to them being naked but not ashamed; young kids tend to do this). Despite this, they had instruction from their authority, instead of knowledge of good and evil, or a conscience, they had direct instructions that they disobeyed (out of their own will).I know God didn't instruct them to disobey this because of (Mark 3:24-25).>You are responsible for your children, and for your property, etc.I agree, merely because these are under you. Like a boss is responsible of his employees, because he has power to exercise authority over them.
>>84565323>What I believe is that sin fundamentally comes from the heart. As the Bible states multiple times.>And God judges people by their heart primarily.>And what having no free will means is essentially this:>Human beings will always follow their heart and their mind.>But all those things are tainted by sin.>It is essentially a bad tree that always produces bad fruit.I agree in part, but we have the power to shape our circumstances, and though over time willpower will usually fail (because our imaginations are wicked continually, and our heart will usually reset back to this), but moment to moment we also have this. We also can shape our circumstance (making provision for the flesh (avoiding staring idly at the catalog, for example.))Also to the example of our wicked hearts, or God judging our thoughts, this is only possible, because we can control these.>If you were to accept all such arguments unconditionally then polygamy and divorce are morally correct as well.Can you elaborate? I think the law forbids this pretty explicitly (except in cases where you find her without a hymen prior to consummation (the third condition of marriage). The new testament shares the same doctrine pretty much. >Human beings will always follow their heart and their mind.I wonder if I could post an example contrary to this, someone making a sacrifice perhaps? Free will of a reduced set of options is to me, still free will, but if every option were sinful? This is a much harder doctrine to refute than a "sovereign will".
>>84565471>someone making a sacrifice perhapsThen in him there were conditions which caused him to make the sacrifice.Like for example, a father sacrifices himself for his child because he loved his son. It is not without cause. Therefore it is not free.The core argument is this:You can do what you want, but you can not want what you want.Rational or irrational, emotional, carnal, or whatever, there is always a cause for any action.That is the point I am arguing.No free will is actually incredibly hard to refute, even proponents of it usually concede.You are essentially arguing against a caricature which neither I nor anyone who holds this position believes.
