Page 1 of 2

Original Sin and Total Depravity (response to Dusman)

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:52 am
by _Steve
Dusman, at the unchained radio forum, wrote to me the following:

***********************

Steve,

Question # 1: What do you make of the following verses?

NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Question # 2: Did we inherit a sin nature from Adam?

In Christ,

Dusman

*****************************

My response:


Hi Dusman,

With reference to your question about 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, I realize that this passage is often brought up alongside Romans 5:12ff, because both passages say something about the respective consequences that the individual actions of Adam and Christ brought on the human race. This juxtaposition is legitimate, if we are studying the total effects of the fall, but the two passages do not affirm the same thing.

Romans 5 speaks of the condemnation (that is, the guilt) of mankind, which is the reason all die—"because all sinned" (Rom.5:12). But 1 Corinthians is talking about the consequences of this guilt: "all die." This result comes upon all who are "in Adam," because of their sins, but is counteracted for those who come to be "in Christ," in that they will be physically raised and restored to life on the last day. Romans 5 is thus discussing the spiritual impact of Adam's sin on all his progeny—"many were made sinners"—while 1 Corinthians 15 discusses the physical effects of the sin that is the result of the fall—"all die."

In answer to your second question, I do believe that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam. It is said to be Adam's disobedience that plunged mankind into this condition (Rom.5:12ff). Exactly how this trait is passed down has been much discussed. Is it genetic? Which gene codes for "sin"? I don't know the answer to those questions. All I do know is that sinful behavior is universal in the human race, even among young children—but there is no affirmation in scripture that children are born guilty of ancestral sin, and the opposite, in fact, seems to be affirmed.

Man is definitely born with sinful inclinations (that is what I have in mind when I speak of man inheriting a "sinful nature"). Wicked men "go astray as soon as they are born" (Psalm 58:3—though we might have to allow for a bit of hyperbole here, since it also says, "…speaking lies"—and newborn babies don't speak lies as soon as they are born). We have to allow, also, that the psalmist specifies that he is talking about “wicked” men—by which he might not mean to include all men who are merely ignorant unbelievers.

However, making the observation that all men, by nature, commit sins and fall short of the glory of God, and that they can do nothing to redeem themselves from the guilt and penalty of sin, is not necessarily the same as admitting everything that Calvinists believe about total depravity. To affirm that the Bible teaches some doctrine of “original sin” does not require that the Bible exclude the retention of a modicum of “original righteousness” in the human race. Fallen man does not have enough righteousness to commend him to God in the day of judgment, but he still bears the image of God, in measure, and still retains a capacity to care about truth and justice (which is absent from those more advanced in their depravity). This capacity to care, coupled with being informed of the truth of the gospel, and being convicted by the Holy Spirit, can provide incentives for a man to come to Christ, which he then can do, and is expected to do. There is not the slightest contradiction between this statement and that which John 6:44 affirms. The drawing of God is just as present in this scenario as in the Calvinist’s. But the Calvinist makes the verse say more than it says, namely, that this drawing of God does not interact with anything in man, but constitutes a unilateral imposition of regeneration upon a formerly unwilling subject.

The verses commonly used by Calvinists to establish total depravity (that is, “complete spiritual paralysis”), need to be re-looked-at in their context by the Calvinists who lean upon them. Every one of them is misapplied or divorced from context when used to support the first point of Calvinism’s famous acrostic, as I will demonstrate below. Though you have not yet brought up all of these texts in our dialogue, you have referred to some of them, and Calvinist writers and debaters constantly bring them up in their attempts to establish their case for “total depravity.” I would like to make some helpful observations that may help others to avoid the common exegetical errors made by Calvinists in most debates.

In Psalm 14:2ff (quoted by Paul, in Romans 3:10-12), we are told what God saw when he looked down on the sons of men in the author's time. Using typical biblical hyperbole, David says, they had “all turned aside” and had “become corrupt.” These are clearly not declarations of a birth condition, but speak of a departure from an earlier condition (possibly their relatively-more-innocent childhoods?). Paul, in quoting this Psalm includes, “There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.” What God saw was “none that does good, no, not one." Calvinists generally acknowledge (as is only reasonable) that this is not quite true of everyone, since the writer himself, for example, would be an exception to this general assessment. Calvinists, therefore, say that the psalmist is describing only "unregenerate man" (excluding the elect). However, this does not arise from exegeting the passage, or even from reading it very carefully. The statement applies, as the passage says, to "the sons of men"—a generic expression used in the scriptures for "human beings," including those who are believers (cf. Ps.8:4). Both Calvinists and Arminians can agree that some exceptions must be allowed to the general description of humanity given in the Psalm. God looked down and saw “none” (probably, allowing for the hyperbole, actually "very few") who were righteous, who understood, who sought God or did good. This kind of hyperbole is not without parallel in scripture (cf. John 3:32-33). The prophets often gave such appraisals of the spiritual state of their society or their generation, and David did the same. To say he was teaching a universal theological/anthropological dogma would be to press his intentions far beyond what we have reason to believe them to have been.

Another favorite of the Calvinist, Genesis 6:5, tells us that "every imagination of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually." This describes how wicked the typical man had become in the time just before the flood. This was a development after the fall, but it took time for the corruption of the race to reach this nadir. Calvinists transform this verse into a general statement about the depravity of the whole human race in every generation since the fall—certainly not a reasonable application of the text, nor its intended meaning. This is, no doubt, another instance of the use of hyperbole, since the statement would find exceptions in men like Seth, Enoch, Noah and Shem during that period. Once again, Genesis 6:5 does not contrast the elect with the non-elect. It is just a general statement about the majority of people at a particular point in history.

Jeremiah speaks of the inability of his contemporaries in Judah to change their sinful behavior—likening it to the impossibility of a leopard changing his spots, or an Ethiopian his skin (13:23). Though, in the examples of the leopard and the Ethiopian, the unchangeable characteristics are in-born, yet the inability of the sinner to change his way is said not to be in-born, but a result of "accustomed" behavior: "then may you also do good, who are accustomed to do evil." If all men, from birth, are paralyzed (with reference to doing good), this verse does not inform us of it.

Jeremiah also speaks of the state of the Jews' hearts in his day as "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (17:9). Calvinists do the same thing with this verse that they do with Genesis 6:5—i.e., they extrapolate to all mankind in every age the conditions described of Jeremiah’s reprobate contemporaries. When this is done, it is eisegesis.

Similarly, Jesus' statement, "Without me, you can do nothing," (John 15:5) is not applicable to the doctrine of total depravity, since it was spoken to believers concerning their inability to bear spiritual fruit apart from Him—it has nothing to tell us about the unbeliever's inability to repent.

Romans 8:5-8 says that those who are in the flesh "do mind the things of the flesh" and “cannot please God” nor be subject to His laws, while in this frame of mind. While Paul’s statement is a true observation of the general mental habits of unbelievers, it would go far beyond anything Paul says to suggest that the natural man never has a single spiritual thought of his own. This certainly would fly in the face of what any of us who have actually become acquainted with many unbelievers have observed, and there is no reason to import it into Paul’s comment. The same passage also observes that all Christians "mind the things of the Spirit." Since this latter statement is not absolute (seeing that true Christians are capable of generating unspiritual thoughts), there is no reason to press the statement about carnal man any more absolutely. That is, Paul, and all who observe unbelievers can agree that carnal people generally do mind carnal things (as spiritual people generally mind spiritual things), but that does not rule out the occasional carnal thought of the spiritual man, nor the occasional spiritual thought of the natural man. Paul certainly does not tell us that the natural man cannot choose to turn around and believe God. Paul, in fact, assumes that they possess this ability, so that “they are without excuse” (Rom.1:20).

Another favorite: Ephesians 4:17-19 says of the Gentiles that they (as a group of races lacking Israel’s advantages) have their understanding darkened...because of the blindness of their heart...being past feeling." Calvinists try to apply this to the birth-state of all unregenerate people, in order to support their concept of total depravity. Yet Paul does not say that this blindness and darkening of their heart was a birth condition. In fact, being "past feeling" suggests that they passed a certain point in the process of depravity that is probably equivalent to the "reprobate mind" in Romans 1:28. Interestingly, Romans 1:21 tells us that the vainness of their imaginations, and the darkening of their hearts was an acquired condition, resulting from earlier rebellion against light. No evidence is given of this being anyone’s native state.

Another favorite: 1 Corinthians 2:14 says the natural man does not receive "the things of the Spirit of God." Calvinists say that this proves that an unregenerated man cannot grasp or embrace the gospel. However, Paul is not referring to the Gospel itself, but to the "deep things" revealed by the Spirit of God to the apostles (v.10) which Paul taught only to "those who are mature" (v.6)—as opposed to immature Christians, like the Corinthians (3:1-2). Even though the Corinthians were not spiritual enough to "receive the things of the Spirit," as Paul is pointing out, in context, yet they were apparently able to receive the Gospel, which Paul summarized as "Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"(v.2).

A very favorite proof of "total inability" among Calvinists is Ephesians 2:1 (cf. Colossians 2:13), where Paul reminds the Ephesians that they were once "dead in trespasses and sins." Since it is clear that no one was literally dead before he/she became a Christian (i.e., all had vital signs before conversion) everyone recognizes that Paul is using death as a metaphor. But in what sense is the metaphor intended, and what are the ramifications of a person being “dead in trespasses and sins”? Calvinists (and many non-Calvinists) think it appropriate to interpret Paul as saying that unsaved people are "spiritually" dead in trespasses and sins. Perhaps this is Paul's meaning. But then, the Calvinist goes on to speculate that this condition precludes any ability to repent or believe. “Dead men can’t repent or believe—they can’t even hold out a hand to beg for mercy, or reach for a life-preserver—because they are not sick, but DEAD.” [Note: Why is it necessary to take the metaphor of death as absolute, to the exclusion of the metaphor of sickness? Jesus used the latter, as did Isaiah, Peter, and others. Are we entitled to pick and choose which biblical metaphors suit our agendas best, and to deny the others?] This is supposed to support their contention that regeneration must precede faith.

Yet, while there are many instances of the Bible using “death” in a non-literal sense, there is none that delimits the figure to meaning “a state in which it is not possible to choose right from wrong.” Such an assumption is entirely arbitrary, and rests on no exegetical treatment of the relevant texts.

While it is true that dead men don’t believe anything at all, yet non-Christian men can, and do, believe whatever they can be persuaded to be true and beneficial to them. Furthermore, people who are literally dead don’t make any choices at all, but unregenerate men make many choices, including positive moral decisions, on a regular basis. In fact, in a very notable instance of Jesus using the term “dead” in just the way Paul does, it is obvious that the “dead” party in question was not unable to repent, because the prodigal son repented, while in a far country, at a time when it is declared that he “was dead”(Luke 15:24). It is therefore clear that “dead in sins,” as applied to the unregenerate, cannot imply that they cannot believe, repent, or make positive moral choices. It makes no more sense to assume this to be the meaning of this phrase than to assume that a Christian, who is “dead to sin” (Romans 6:2) can never make any sinful choices! But what DOES it mean to say that we were “dead in sins”?

Is it possible that Paul, in reminding us that we were once “dead,” has nothing in mind with reference to any particular limitations on our abilities, but, rather, is referring to our status as miscreants condemned to die for our crimes? Before we were justified and regenerated, we were “as good as dead,” because we were on death row, without a hope of escape or pardon, apart from Christ. The terms “dead” and “as good as dead” are used interchangeably in Romans 4:19 and Hebrews 11:12.

When God appeared to Abimelech, who had taken Sarah into his harem, God said, “You are a dead man!”(Genesis 20:3). This certainly meant that Abimelech was on a collision course with death as a consequence of his inappropriate action. If we were to learn that, within five minutes, our city was going to be reduced to a smoldering crater by a nuclear attack from our enemies, would not many who learned of this justly cry out, “We’re all dead!”? This is how “dead” is used metaphorically in the Bible on a regular basis (e.g., Ex.12:33/ 2 Sam.9:8; 19:28/ Matt. 9:18/ Rom.8:10). This is probably also the same sense in which Paul speaks of his own spiritual past, when he says, “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died…” (Romans 7:9ff). That is, the law gave sin the teeth to condemn him to death, whereas, he was not condemned prior to knowing the law.

The whole drift of scripture (contradicted by nothing in scripture) is that sinners are fully expected to believe the gospel and to repent, and their failure to do so is without excuse. In deciding whether this response precedes regeneration or follows it, consider the following facts:

1. The Bible repeatedly says that, if you believe, you will be saved (e.g., Acts 16:31/ Romans 10:9/ Mark 16:16/ Luke 8:12/ Heb.10:39, etc.); whereas it never says that, if God saves you, you will believe;

2. The Bible says that whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved (e.g., Rom.10:13); but does not say that, if God saves you, you will then call on the Lord;

3. The Bible says that we are specially loved by God because we believed (John 16:27); it does not say that we believed because we were specially loved (chosen) by God;

4. Bible says that men must “repent and be converted so that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19/ cf. Acts 10:43; 22:16/1 John 1:9); yet this blotting out of sins is said to have preceded regeneration (Col.2:13);

5. The Bible says that the Spirit of God (who regenerates men) is given to those who repent and believe (John 7:39/Acts 2:38; 11:17; 19:2/ Eph.1:13); it nowhere says that men will repent and believe as a result of the Spirit (who regenerates) being given to them;

6. The Bible teaches that eternal life (i.e., regeneration) is granted in response to man’s believing (John 6:40; 20:31/ 1 Tim.1:16); but it does not teach anywhere that men believe because they have received eternal life (i.e., been regenerated).

If it is true that regeneration precedes faith, it is a truth strangely omitted from any biblical text, and is thoroughly confused by the numerous statements to the contrary everywhere in scripture. Perhaps this is why this “truth” remained undiscovered until the fourth century after Christ. Of course the next question is, if this “truth” is really true, what benefit is there in knowing it? If someone says that this truth glorifies God, then we might ask why God, if He thought it would glorify Him to declare this truth, never once declared it Himself, and then further confused matters by seeming to say the opposite so many times. Either this “truth” is not true, or God does not want us to know it is true, or else God must be considered a very poor communicator.

I therefore conclude that it is 100% arbitrary to import into Paul’s metaphor of death the specific idea of “inability to repent and believe.” There is no scriptural warrant for interpreting Paul’s statements in this way, and there is much in scripture to point us another direction.

The entire doctrine that unregenerate man is incapable of repentance and faith—

1) ...is built entirely upon a platform comprised of a few local and anecdotal statements of scripture, which are universalized,without contextual warrant, by Calvinists;

2) ...is in conflict with the many places in scripture where God calls men to repent and believe...as if they could do so;

3) ...requires that God is not sincere in the hundreds of passages where He acts as if He is upset and where He expresses astonishment at men’s lack of responsiveness, and condemns them for not complying; and

3) ...is contrary not only to scripture, but also to the teaching of all theologians prior to Augustine.

So why believe it?

If this first premise of Calvinism’s acrostic is not valid, then there is no basis for the remaining four points, which follow only as logical necessities of the first, and do not have any more solid exegetical proof than does the first.

Blessings to all who love the truth!

Steve

Opinion

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:29 am
by _Anonymous
You said:
1. The Bible repeatedly says that, if you believe, you will be saved (e.g., Acts 16:31/ Romans 10:9/ Mark 16:16/ Luke 8:12/ Heb.10:39, etc.); whereas it never says that, if God saves you, you will believe;

Jesus said:
JOH 10:26-27 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

I say: They are sheep first, that is why they believe.

Re: Opinion

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:29 am
by _Sean
johnnyjl wrote:You said:
1. The Bible repeatedly says that, if you believe, you will be saved (e.g., Acts 16:31/ Romans 10:9/ Mark 16:16/ Luke 8:12/ Heb.10:39, etc.); whereas it never says that, if God saves you, you will believe;

Jesus said:
JOH 10:26-27 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

I say: They are sheep first, that is why they believe.
John 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
41 "I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you--Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
I read Jesus talking about being willing, to be seeking and believing. He does say that since they are unwilling to come to Him and recieve Him that they will not believe His claims to be the fulfillment of what Abraham wrote about. That's why Jesus says "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." They are not His sheep, because they refuse. He already knows who will not believe Him:

John 6:64
But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:08 pm
by _Anonymous
Steve,

What about:

Psalm 51:5
" 5
For I was born a sinner--
yes, from the moment my mother conceived me."

Genesis 8:21-22

"21And the LORD was pleased with the sacrifice and said to himself, "I will never again curse the earth, destroying all living things, even though people's thoughts and actions are bent toward evil from childhood. 22As long as the earth remains, there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night."

I mean C'mon guy, doesn't this show that total depravity is a definite... ?

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 9:36 pm
by _Steve
My answer to the passage, raised by Johnnyjl (above) about Christ's sheep can be found at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=192&start=15

As for TC's objections, I don't see how the statement that a man is a sinner translates into the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity.

I have never been caught denying that man is born with a bent toward sin—in fact, I assert it plainly in my post above. This doctrine is acknowledged by all Christians, except the Pelagians. I am not a Pelagian.

To say that a man with a bent toward sin is incapable of desiring righteousness, or of making a righteous choice, is as extreme (and uncalled-for) as to suggest that a man who is bent toward righteousness (as Christians are, by nature) is incapable of having any unrighteous desires or of making any sinful decisions. I assume that our Calvinist friends would not affirm the latter proposition, though they do affirm the former.

As a result of regeneration, I am inclined to follow righteousness. I still have a fallen human nature, though, which tugs at me in the direction of sin. Similarly, the unregenerate man has a basic inclination to sin, because he is alienated from God, but he retains in his human nature the image of God. This nature makes him capable of desiring reunion with his Creator, and confers moral responsibility (implying freedom of choice, since there is no genuine responsibility where there is no genuine choice).

Saying that a man is "dead in sin" (Eph.2:1) does not mean that he can do nothing right, any more than saying a Christian is "dead to sin" (Rom.6:11) means that he is incapable of sinning.

We can all agree that no amount of righteous acts or choices can erase the guilt of sins committed in the past, so we are not for a moment suggesting that man can save himself by making righteous choices. Only God can save, and only the blood of Christ can atone for sin. Nothing is added to man's merit or diminished from Christ's glory to say that a man who is unsaved is capable of crying out to God for mercy.

***************

Here is a challenge to our Calvinist posters—

I have noticed the following pattern in every thread about Calvinism.

a. The Calvinist raises a "proof text" (or a list of "proof texts"), without including any exegetical treatment of the named passage(s);

b. A non-Calvinist comes on, providing a responsible exegesis of each passage raised by the Calvinists, which completely deflates the latter's arguments;

c. The Calvinist makes no defense of his original "proof texts" but simply adds several more (or even repeats the same ones!), which are then exegetically refuted in a similar manner;

d. The non-Calvinist presents scriptures that positively teach non-Calvinist doctrine, and which invalidate the Calvinist point under discussion;

e. In response, the Calvinist pretends that no such scriptures have been presented, provides no rebuttal, and simply repeats one or more of the "proof texts" that have already been refuted.


I don't think that this is a skewed representation of these discussions, and anyone who wonders whether this is the case can simply read any of the relevant threads and make his own assessment.

I am left to conclude that none of our Calvinist friends knows how to exegete a biblical passage, or else that they do not believe it necessary or desirable to provide an exegetical case for Calvinism. It would appear that Calvinism is a completely non-exegetical system of theology.

I would like to challenge our Calvinist friends to break this frustrating cycle and to demonstrate that there is indeed some reason for a Bible-believing Christian to accept the Calvinist points.

Re: Opinion

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:07 pm
by _IlovetheLord
johnnyjl wrote:You said:
1. The Bible repeatedly says that, if you believe, you will be saved (e.g., Acts 16:31/ Romans 10:9/ Mark 16:16/ Luke 8:12/ Heb.10:39, etc.); whereas it never says that, if God saves you, you will believe;

Jesus said:
JOHN 10:26-27 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

I say: They are sheep first, that is why they believe.
Context Context Context.

22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah. 23 He was at the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is what I do in the name of my Father. 26 But you don't believe me because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. 30 The Father and I are one."

Look at verse 25. He told them already and they didn't believe what he said.

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:16 pm
by _IlovetheLord
TC wrote:Steve,

What about:

Psalm 51:5

For I was born a sinner-- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me."

Genesis 8:21-22

"21 And the LORD was pleased with the sacrifice and said to himself, "I will never again curse the earth, destroying all living things, even though people's thoughts and actions are bent toward evil from childhood. 22 As long as the earth remains, there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night."

I mean C'mon guy, doesn't this show that total depravity is a definite... ?
Psalm 51:5 is simply saying that we are born with the potential to sin which everyone as they grow fulfills that potential. That first doesn't prove that a non-christian can't do righteous things.

Genesis 8:21-22 Your own proof text proves you wrong. It says peoples thoughts are bent toward evil not that they are totally evil with any good thoughts.

Jesus said to the Pharisees that even them being of the devil do good. They aren't gonna give a scorpian to a child.

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:25 pm
by _Anonymous
Hey everyone. How would we explain that

"a bad tree can't bear good fruit" ???



SoaringEagle

Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:35 pm
by _Steve
Jesus made this statement on two known occasions. In both cases, He was talking about recognizing false religious leaders, whom He likened to fruit-bearing trees. In Matthew 7:15-20, the bad trees are "false prophets," and in Matthew 12:33-37, he is talking about the scribes and Pharisees.

In the latter passage, it is clear that the imagery of "fruit" refers to the "words" of the corrupt leaders. Such leaders can be recognized as such by the evil words they speak (false doctrine, perhaps, or just malicious words against Christ, as in Matt.12:24).

Calvinists sometimes want to make the statement mean that an unregenerate person cannot repent or believe, since this would be a case of a "bad tree" producing "good fruit," which Jesus said was an impossibility. In my opinion, this argument depends upon two fallacious assumptions:

1) that Jesus would include every unregenerate person under the label of a "bad tree" (a term He reserves for very wicked men, whom He likens to wolves), and

2) that "fruit" refers to such mental actions as faith and repentance. The validity of these assumptions seems impossible to establish from scripture, and are not called for by the context of either of the relevant statements.

That all who are unregenerate are equally evil, or are as evil as those whom Jesus denounced, is not at all obvious from scripture, nor have I found it to be true in my experience knowing unbelievers.

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:27 pm
by _Anonymous
It's me again everyone, soaringeagle. I have heard the following questions and was wondering how we would answer them. I have some thoughts I'd like to say, but would like to see others comment on them first. Here they are.

1) Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another?

2) What principle in him made him choose what he did?

3) Was he able to generate a right thought, produce a right affection, create right belief, while at the same time man #2 did not have the natural wherewithal to come up with the faith to be saved?

4) If they both made use of the same grace, did one make better use of it than the other?

5) If prevenient grace places us in a neutral state, then what motivates one man to believe and not another?

6) If all men are neutral in prevenient grace was it by chance that one believed and not another?

7) Is it the grace of God that makes you differ from unbelievers or is it your faith?

S.E.