Adam’s Choice vs. Fallen Man’s Choice

Very interesting; It is fascinating that you have taken the mystery of why adam sinned and consequently concluded that it is a mystery why anyone choose God. There is, however a fundamental difference between Adam (man in his pre-fallen condition) and man (in his post-fallen condition).

Adam before the fall was not contaminated by sin. Sin was not in his life. He had no sinful nature. Now what do I mean by a sinful nature? Do I mean that he had some entity outside of himself causing him to sin? Certainly not! The word nature here is meant in the following sense: genetically controlled qualities of an organism, or the inherent character/basic constitution
of a thing.

Now what does this all mean? Since words are nothing more then
symbols annotating meaning. I will give you a word picture:
The nature of a lion is to kill. This desire to kill and hunt for food is not outside of the
lion but an inherent characteristic of the lion.
Here’s another:
A doe naturally is a peacful animal. It goes from place to place grazing. It will only fight to
defend itself or family but does not seek other animals with the desire to kill
them.
Both of these animals are examples of how God created them with
particular natures.

Now, getting back to man…
Man before the fall did not have a natural inclination to sin. He naturally did not want to sin. Or did he? That is another question that I will leave for another time –for time’s sake. However, if you do say this, then your stating that God created man with a nature (desire/ inclination) to sin. This opens up a can of worms.

We do know that man(after the fall) is born with sinful desires in his heart. It is part of our nature to rebel against God. This passed down from Adam, thus resulting in a sin nature. Adam’s choice to sin without a natural desire to sin is nothing like our choice to sin because we indeed have a sin nature.

To illustrate this point is another word picture:
A doe choosing to kill another doe and eat it is wholly different than a doe eating
grass. The first doe is going against its nature by killing and eating one of it’s own. The other doe is only following its nature.

When we analyze how we choose our actions, this point becomes more clear. Man, or decision making entity, decides to act or make a decision. We only ever do what we want to do.

What does this mean? Well, let’s first examine what this doesn’t mean. This doesn’t mean that I am always 100% for an action– as in I even want to take that course of action, such as going to work. I don’t want to go to work. I would much rather do various other things. So then why do I go to work? Because I would rather work than starve. My desire to not go to work is less then my desire to starve. Once again, even in an action I am not completely for, I still did what I wanted to do.

If your desire to not go to work was 51% and desire to go to work was 49%, would you go to work? No, because you would rather not work than work. Very simple concept but yet very hard to truly absorb.

How does this apply to the discussion at hand? Since man only does his greatest inclination at any given time, then he is bound by his desires. Therefore, if man does good then his desire was to do what is good over that which is evil. Likewise, if man does what is evil that means his desire to do what is evil is greater than his desire to do good.

Is man prior to being saved and receiving a heart of flesh in place of a heart of stone evil or good? Before you say that is a false dichotomy… What if he is morally neutral? He could, theoretically, be neutral but by what basis does he choose right from wrong? He would have to choose based on an arbitrary decision or a decision outside of moral considerations. This would make his moral decisions meaningless and God’s corresponding wrath of his meaningless decisions unjust. If man chooses to make a moral decision it has to be meaningful.

Once again, how does he make these decisions? Based off of his inclinations or desires. How does he receive these inclinations or desires? Are they against his nature or from his nature.

If you answered they are against his nature, this is impossible. If they are against what he was, then he couldn’t possibly do it. If he did this, it would only prove that this was a part of his nature. It all goes back to you can’t do what you don’t want to do. You can’t use what you don’t have.

If man is morally evil, then it is impossible for him to choose good. His evil desires will always be greater than his nonexistent good desires. Even if man did have a 49% good and 51% percent evil, he would still never choose to do good. He would have to be morally good, or at least 51%
good and 49% evil, to choose good — I.E. choose the goodness of the gospel of
Christ. If this were the case, then all men would choose good. However, we know this is not the case.

What if man was 50% good and 50% evil? Could this be a possibility? Unfortunately, no. If this was the case, man would be unable to make a decision at all. This lack of a decision would be a decision to not choose God. Thus, all men would go to hell. This is not reflective of reality.

This brings us to the question: if all men are evil (at least 51% evil), then why would anyone choose good? According to my previous words he wouldn’t. This is an accurate assessment, and this is where Calvinism comes into play: God is the one who places that desire into man, giving him the desire to choose good over evil. God, which is his sovereign right, also allows other men to remain in their evil state.

Now, I am in no way trying to convince you of Calvinism through this analysis of man’s decision making. I am simply trying to say that Calvinism is completely logical, and the alternative is either undiscovered or illogical. I say undiscovered because it is a possibility. This is, however, highly unlikely. God has given teachers to the church, to discover and share His truth. Truth is important to God, and He wants us to worship Him in truth and in spirit. It is possible that God would not have revealed this mystery to one of His servants. But, it is unlikely that God would leave us in the
dark on such an important truth.

Remember, fellow servant of God, that He created logic. Without logic, there would be no way to interpret anything or put meaning on any of God’s Word. Logic is not a Christian’s enemy, but his friend.

Some things are beyond logic, but they are never illogical. Is man’s moral inability to choose what he doesn’t want to illogical? –quite the opposite Man choosing what he has no desire to choose is illogical.

In conclusion, we have to study the Word of God and see what it reveals about the condition of man. I see that the Word consistently teaches that man is evil and not that man is good. If this is true, you then match this up with understanding that man only does what he desires to do. The result is total inability. This leads to the question: how is anyone saved? And you have a mystery until you read the scriptures and find out about God’s sovereign election. Thus, the doctrines wee refer to as Calvinism.

Now, there is so much more I would like to say about why Adam, Satan, and the angels choose evil, but that would be too much for this one article. I would also love to show you in scripture where God talks about the condition of man and sovereign election, but this again would be too much for this article.

I hope this helps. God bless you; abide in the fear of the Lord and shun evil.

The Reverse Argument Technique

I got into a debate or argument with a Christian “missionary” yesterday. I put missionary in quotations  because while he is technically a missionary in title, he is not a missionary in the classical sense. He only lives in a house that serves bible studies, drives a van and picks up Christians to and from the ministry, and host video bible studies a few times a week. Does that make him deserve the title of missionary? I don’t know. Maybe?

Let me not digress any further. While he was driving me to the hospitality house for a night of fellowship, we got into a discussion about the blessing of Children, and God’s plan for the family. Which I will discuss in further detail in a separate article. I think I insulted him with this discussion because as I spoke about how God’s plan – especially concerning children he completely agreed. I, however knew that he only had four children and that he practice contraception to limit his family. So, I simply asked him, ” if you believe children are blessings, why would you limit them?” There seems to be a disconnect. True belief produces actions; it’s as simply as that.

This sparked strong emotional dissent and a weak justification from his part; as well as, him sharing a story of a friend who had twelve children, who refused to condemn Christians who kill abortion doctors. I had to interject at this point and say I don’t believe that is murder either. It is sin because God says mine is vengeance says the Lord. We should leave justice to God and the State and executing  justice are selves is a lack of trust, a violation of psalms 40:4.

Is this, however, murder? I think not. God system of justice is quite clear. If you murder a man in cold blood (we see in the scripture there are certain circumstances when if a man does kill another man it is not murder because of the mitigating circumstances) that the righteous punishment is death.  Therefore, a man who make his living killing innocent children deserves death. That would be justice.

Once again I am digressing. The point here is not to get into the details of the argument but to speak about the reverse argument technique. So many times when you engage into an argument with someone it is in vain. This is because they are completely closed-minded to the reality that you could be speaking truth or have something worthy to say. They only want to prove that they are right and you are wrong, without ever truly considering the other side or position. This is absolute folly. If you going to take the time and effort to discuss a topic with a fellow believer you should at least try to get a full perspective of their side of the argument.

You should not assume that you know their side, and most importantly the ramification of their beliefs (second and third order effects). This is where so many people go, so, wrong. They ignorantly state that they know your beliefs and counter them on their faulty perception of the consequences of believing such. This makes you, on the defensive, have to dumbfoundedly try to defend your self from multiple strawman. They walk away thinking they have destroyed your solid philosophical or theological beliefs, and you walk away irritated that you views where totally misrepresented.

You have two options at this point: continue to argue your point, even through this could result in the loss of fellowship with that brother or sister in Christ, or simply accept a faulty defeat. Most of the time we choose the latter. There is, however, a neat technique that you can avoid this situation from happening: the reverse argument technique.

It is quite simply: all you have to do is say ‘to make sure that you understand my perspective fully, I want you to argue my point, and I will argue your’s.  If they are not willing to argue your point, this simply means they are ignorant and/or close minded to your view-point, and there is no point of continuing. If they can argue you point accurately yet still disagree. Well then, there is a possibility that you could be wrong, and you should reconsider your views, with considerations to their possibly accurate assessment. Thus, the reverse argument technique.

God bless you; abide in the fear and admiration  of the Lord all the days of your life. Love God with your…mind…

Wielding the Word like a samurai sword

The bible calls it self A sword. It say that it is sharper then any two edge blade. The bible is the word of God and it is in fact a sword. It is in fact sharp and it is in fact a weapon that can and is meant to be used in battle. You see I look at the word For God has a dance. As a long chain of combo’s that lead to a knockout. As an apologist I want to be able to wield the Sword of God. This is my one and only weapon. I need to be able when forming Doctrines or defending doctrines be able to call upon Scripture to use. I need to swing the Sword of The word with full fury at my enemies or my confused brother. Not have just one swing but following up with another and another and another. But I must allow the the blow to swing in the movement it was designed for. If the sword is meant to go up and left in this Scripture I must allow it to God up and left. For I must be a proper wielder of the sword of God. You see it not about knowing all of the scriptures it is about wielding as must of the moves and combos of the sword as possible. To destroy my enemy and defeat my fow . I am a soilder for Christ I am to wear the armor of God. I am to swing the sword with love but swing it none the less. It not about being poofed up with knowledge. It is about knowing when and how to use each swing of the sword. I will conquer my enemies not by my own power but by the Sword provided for in the Scripture. Warriors of Christ stand up and start training of the battle is now and well be until the enemy and his Children are in hell.

Student of the Word

As a student of the word I must obtain an efficient  productive study regiment  At the current time I have tried two different methods. They are in complete opposition to each other with is quite interesting. to my myself. First I tried reading entire books I thought this would be the most edifying  method for bible study. I soon found at this was indeed not the most effect method at all. I actually found out that this method fall short in many categories . One I found that my mind was not able to obtain 1fourth of the information I would have previously read. Two if a difficult  text would occur I would just read through it and completely ignore it in a sense. Three It made me lose confidence in accurately dividing the word of truth for the bible is way to deep to just casually read through. It simply can not be done. I have listed just a few of the reason why this is just not the method to do. But if you do not believe me try it. I did and I am doing it actually right now with my bible bus NT spring break goal.You can not retain all the information gather in each and every book this way and plus this should not even be called study for it is not. It is just reading Scripture which is good but can not even be considered studding scripture. The Second I have tried to study the bible was to go verse by verse using my Greek lexicon the problem with this was I was looking at the bible as if it was some secret cryptic code. As if it was some kind of law paper that need to be translated. Plus with my limited amount of Greek knowledge and my complete inability to tell how the grammar structure of the Greek even work. It was simply a time draining impossible task. It was unmotivating and extremely slow. Plus by doing this you could alter and sentence to make it say what you want it to say. You can do this which an English dictionary as well. But I would not suggest it for people off the bat can tell when you say the word power in true English means etc etc. Everybody will look at you like a complete eisegesis because guilty of just that. Look at one or two Greeks word for clarification  is fine. But trying to change and alter sentences to fit your doctrines is completely unacceptable. Another flaw of study the bible verse by verse is when you get a challenging verse. Or a build up verse you will be completely unable to properly translate and break down that verse with the immediate context. This Is just a sample of the reason why this technique of study simple does not work. The next bible study technique I will try is to read book of the bible. write the main ideal and doctrines or purpose of the book. Basically writing a summery. Then I will go on and write a summery on each chapter next each paragraph next each sentence. In that order. I will only go to words study when the text is not clear. I will try this technique with one of the NT books of the bible. It will be on trial and bases process twick’s where need improvements and refinement’s where needs as well. Stay in the faith and God bless

inspiring apologist wake up call.

As an inspiring apologist I was listening to Dr. James White and Dr Steve Greggs discussion on Calvinism vs noncalvinism. As I was listening for approximately  1 hour I came suddenly to the realization that this was pure vanity. Well it was not pure vanity but I was simply impossible to properly exegesis all the Scriptures that where used to support each view point. I was not even near enough time to even go properly through 2 verses let alone the numerous verses used to either support Calvinism or possible dismantle Calvinism. The only possible way to properly get an accurately  defense or strike a deadly blow to any demoniac or inaccurate  doctrine is going to have to be through literature. There is absolutely no way you can put the edge of the sword of the word with pin point accuracy  verbally. There is to many variables and possible out comes and circumstances that could occur  when giving a oral presentation let alone the fact that no body wants to listen to thirty plus hours of an oral presentation. Only the most dedicated of individuals would want to do such a task. These same individuals would also spend the same amount of dedication plus others with less dedication would be willing to buy and read a book.Plus as the bible itself declares those who live for the gospel have every right to live by the gospel.  To be hundred percent honest this is my goal and dream of my life at this  current moment is to write apologetic books of offense  and defense  of the gospel. Maybe I will keep my day job lol. God bod bless and stay in the faith.