I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

How can a good, virtuous work be sinful?

A person follows God's will as an instrument, but is not a believer, and God says something like thanks for the free will help (since I never coerce) and by the way that was a sin?

Your argument seems to be tautological that unbelief can only produce sin so unbelief produces sin.

Quote:

---

Yes a man can choose to do good. Otherwise how could he choose to believe in God?

---

You disagree with my answer on this.

Quote:

---

But never did I say that the good the man does is salvific. God can inspire people to His will for His pleasure and do good by them without their belief in Him as a prerequisite.

---

If he can (and always does) choose to do good, then what does he need to be saved from? He'll stand before the judgment seat, unsaved but without sin to convict him. That doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

But that choice is always inspired by God, God always precedes him. As St John says the spark is struck by God, then God blows on it and fans the flames. How many sparks will God strike in a person's heart before that person believes? As many as necessary. And the choice always remains the man's. Do or don't do.

---

God is an enabling cause, but not an efficient cause of faith?

k2aggie07 said:

---

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

How can a good, virtuous work be sinful?

A person follows God's will as an instrument, but is not a believer, and God says something like thanks for the free will help (since I never coerce) and by the way that was a sin?

Your argument seems to be tautological that unbelief can only produce sin so unbelief produces sin.

---

I feel the same way. Unbelief isn't a sin now? Denying the existence of your creator and suppressing the truth of God isn't sin?

Romans 1 says that's the chief sin. Everything else comes after, including the evil acts that play themselves out as God turns us over to our depraved minds.

If God can and does use the nations to His purposes in spite of their unbelief, and by doing so this action is sin in their part, how can you say God did not cause their sin? Isn't this the exact error St Vincent pointed out?

k2aggie07 said:

---

If God can and does use the nations to His purposes in spite of their unbelief, and by doing so this action is sin in their part, how can you say God did not cause their sin? Isn't this the exact error St Vincent pointed out?

---

I heard a good analogy on here (can't remember who).

A judge ordains the execution of a murderer. The hangman carries out the sentence. As the hangman does carry out the sentence, he has ill will towards the man. In so doing, the execution is sin even though the judge did not ordain sin.

God may use the nations to His purpose as actions. Sin proceeds from the creation.

Quote:

---

If he can (and always does) choose to do good, then what does he need to be saved from? He'll stand before the judgment seat, unsaved but without sin to convict him. That doesn't make sense

---

If a man can and always does choose to do good, he will have chosen God and believed in God. God always invites. Even if, hypothetically, a man kept himself free from sin in his life he would still die and would still need Christ because Christ renews our nature from that of death and into life. We all inherent the consequence of Adams sin, which is death.

You're locked into this juridical mindset. It's not forensic, it's ontological. We aren't saved for what we do but by what we are. We become saved by being made like Christ by Christ. We become something different.

I never said anything about God's efficiency or sufficiency. If He inspires a man first to a small good and the man assents, and then inspires him to believe and the man rejects, this is not a question of God's efficiency. And the first is not a sin, but the second is. The first is not salvific; his salvation is contingent upon the second.

So the hangman, if he obeys the judge, sins...and if he doesn't he sins. He's going to sin ether way so God says while you're at it, sin in a beneficial way for me? This seems like a very severe error.

k2aggie07 said:

---

So the hangman, if he obeys the judge, sins...and if he doesn't he sins. He's going to sin ether way so God says while you're at it, sin in a beneficial way for me? This seems like a very severe error.

---

You're missing the analogy or making it go beyond the bounds of what it's meant for - to show that sin proceeds from the creature, not the creator when he ordains an action.

Then it's a crappy analogy, and tautological besides. The whole exercise is beginning wth a premise and justifying from there.

If the action is sinful God would not have them do it, because God doesn't cause or instruct or encourage or enable people to sin. Easy peasy.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Then it's a crappy analogy, and tautological besides. The whole exercise is beginning wth a premise and justifying from there.

If the action is sinful God would not have them do it, because God doesn't cause or instruct or encourage or enable people to sin. Easy peasy.

---

The action of a hangman carrying out a judgment is not sinful. It is amoral. It is the sin in his heart that makes it sinful.

Then the action of choice, choosing to believe in God, is both amoral and sinful because of the sin in the heart.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Then the action of choice, choosing to believe in God, is both amoral and sinful because of the sin in the heart.

---

what?

Logic runs like this.

Actions are amoral. Only intent matters.
All intent of the unregenerated heart is sinful.
The action to believe is an action. Therefore it is immoral.
The intent of the heart at the action is that of an unregenerated person. Therefore it is sinful.

I don't know if I believe all intent is sinful or that belief is an action. Just showing you how God does not cause sin even if he causes an action.

Also, North Dallas thinks a person who believes is regenerated.

And if the action is 100% guaranteed to be sinful, as the calvinists say, then any action God causes will be sinful.

It's bad logic. Bad theology. And even if it wasn't, the Church has said over and over that's not the faith of the apostles. We have free will. End of discussion.

Yeah he also believes that God causes their belief and this denies free will, although he will say that's not right.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and the contortions and cognitive dissonance required to maintain the belief is immense.

k2aggie07 said:

---

And if the action is 100% guaranteed to be sinful, as the calvinists say, then any action God causes will be sinful.

---

I don't see that as a problem. Adam and Eve sinned and God knew they would, yet still created them. But he's not culpable.

Different entirely.

Adam and Eve had the option to sin or not sin.

The Calvinist view says that we do not have the option to sin or not sin.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Different entirely.

Adam and Eve had the option to sin or not sin.

The Calvinist view says that we do not have the option to sin or not sin.

---

God did not know, before they sinned, that they were going to sin?

Quote:

---

If God can and does use the nations to His purposes in spite of their unbelief, and by doing so this action is sin in their part, how can you say God did not cause their sin?

---

Because the sin of unbelief already existed. God doesn't cause their sin of unbelief by using them to His purpose while they're unbelievers.

A virtuous deed, even if willed by God, doesn't wipe out the sin of exchanging the truth for a lie.

Quote:

---

If a man can and always does choose to do good, he will have chosen God and believed in God. God always invites.

---

Under your model, rejecting God's invitation, suppressing the truth that He has revealed, is not a sin?

Quote:

---

Even if, hypothetically, a man kept himself free from sin in his life he would still die and would still need Christ because Christ renews our nature from that of death and into life. We all inherent the consequence of Adams sin, which is death.

You're locked into this juridical mindset. It's not forensic, it's ontological. We aren't saved for what we do but by what we are. We become saved by being made like Christ by Christ. We become something different.

---

It's possible to never believe, yet not sin?
And we're all bound for eternal death--and by that I assume you mean the second death, the lake of fire--even if we never sin? We're convicted because of Adam's sin and not our own?

Quote:

---

You're locked into this juridical mindset. It's not forensic, it's ontological. We aren't saved for what we do but by what we are. We become saved by being made like Christ by Christ. We become something different.

---

Well, it's a final judgment, from a judgment seat, by a just God. So yes, I tend toward a juridical view of those aspects. I can see why you avoid such an understanding if your belief involves eternal condemnation because of someone else's sin.

I agree with you that we're judged by what we are--new creations in Christ. We just disagree about whether God makes us that on His own initiative, or as a reaction to ours.

Quote:

---

or as a reaction to ours.

---

Well God does not react to us as if he didn't know something. So we know that's wrong.

Y'all do understand this debate has been going on since Luther?

dermdoc said:

---

Y'all do understand this debate has been going on since Luther?

---

Augustine, but yes.

God is omniscient and lives outside of time. Let's leave prescience aside, shall we? Getting into the mechanics of how God's foreknowledge of action interacts with temporal beings always brings along a host of necessary paradox and contradictions. God is transcendent and we can't understand that.

However, we humans live in a temporal state. ***ASSUMING*** the Calvinist view is right, which clearly I do not believe, the two scenarios are quite different.

Scenario 1: Human will is actually free, and God says do A not B. Man chooses B; man has sinned. Had man chosen A, man would not have sinned.

Scenario 2: Human will is in bondage, and God says do A for my plan. Man chooses A; man has sinned. Man chooses not A; man has sinned.

This clearly can't be correct.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Scenario 2: Human will is in bondage, and God says do A for my plan. Man chooses A; man has sinned. Man chooses not A; man has sinned.

This clearly can't be correct.

---

You forgot the part where God has revealed Himself to all men in such a way that everyone knows Him, has no excuse, and yet he exchanges the truth of God for a lie. Insert that into Scenario 2, and then you've basically got it.

Quote:

---

Because the sin of unbelief already existed. God doesn't cause their sin of unbelief by using them to His purpose while they're unbelievers.

A virtuous deed, even if willed by God, doesn't wipe out the sin of exchanging the truth for a lie.

---

Yes, the sin of unbelief is entirely their own. That's not what you said though. You said anything done without faith is a sin. Unbelief is one choice with one consequence; the other choice is another.

If God calls them to do something for His purpose, in their unbelief, their unbelief continues as sin even as their obedience to God's will happens. But their action in following His plan - remember, man is free, so they could increase their sin in disobedience - is a second matter. You're suggesting that their action either way increases their sin. I'm saying, if unbelief is minus a thousand points, obedience is +0 points, disobedience is minus another 100. Or something.

My only point is that it can't be heads you sin tails you sin. That is simply not free will. What justice is there for saying: 'you must live a life and are free to make decisions. A wrong decision results in your eternal damnation. There are no right decisions.' ? That's not free will, that's a mockery of it.

I never said any deed wipes out sin, that would be heretical and that's not what we're talking about.

Quote:

---

Under your model, rejecting God's invitation, suppressing the truth that He has revealed, is not a sin?

---

Let's be clear, not my model. This is the model of the Church that has been confessed always. I am defending exactly and only two rules when it comes to this stuff: God is the source, beginning, and end of all good things (including man's free will, for what it's worth); and, man has free will. You can't break these rules.

Quote:

---

It's possible to never believe, yet not sin?

---

The hypothetical scenario is just that. "EVEN IF". To say otherwise is the error of Pelagius.

And yes, obviously rejecting God's invitation and any disobedience is a sin. And not once, but every single time, because God is patient and longsuffering and loves mankind.

Quote:

---

And we're all bound for eternal death--and by that I assume you mean the second death, the lake of fire--even if we never sin? We're convicted because of Adam's sin and not our own?

---

You keep adding to my words and it seems like you're asking disingenuous questions.

As for death, no to both of your questions.Mortality is what I mean. The Orthodox church teaches Adam was created immortal, and would not have died. This is the first canon of the council of Carthage, since you're so very intent on avoiding the heresy of Pelagius.

PS do you baptize your infants as canon 2 says? Do you believe baptism is for the remission of sins? The canons say infants "therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." They said this is how the "Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it." So if you're going to align that Pelagius is a heresy, note well why. And note regeneration's purpose, and timing.

We do not inherit Adam's sin, but we do inherit the consequence of his sin, which is death and mortality. Christ trampled down death, He defeated death once for all. In doing so He restored all men to immortality. "Death is swallowed up in victory" "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

The judgment is when Christ renders to each according to what he has done. So we need to be clear about death versus quality of eternal life.

Quote:

---

Well, it's a final judgment, from a judgment seat, by a just God. So yes, I tend toward a juridical view of those aspects. I can see why you avoid such an understanding if your belief involves eternal condemnation because of someone else's sin.

I agree with you that we're judged by what we are--new creations in Christ. We just disagree about whether God makes us that on His own initiative, or as a reaction to ours.

---

Now you're just being salty.

Anyway St Isaac says "Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind..." and "His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not."

And no, no, no. You are not representing my point honestly. Over and over again, I've said, God starts, continues, finishes and allows all good in the world and the entirety of the salvation process. It is always Him who starts. How many times have I said this? How many times did St John emphasize it? But the choice is always free, and it always is ours. He is not reacting to us -- we are reacting to Him! "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come in."

It doesn't say I knock and regenerate you and then you hear my voice and open the door.

You might enjoy this. Fr Hopko is way better at it than me.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_wrath_of_god

Quote:

---

Yes, the sin of unbelief is entirely their own. That's not what you said though. You said anything done without faith is a sin. Unbelief is one choice with one consequence; the other choice is another.

If God calls them to do something for His purpose, in their unbelief, their unbelief continues as sin even as their obedience to God's will happens. But their action in following His plan - remember, man is free, so they could increase their sin in disobedience - is a second matter. You're suggesting that their action either way increases their sin. I'm saying, if unbelief is minus a thousand points, obedience is +0 points, disobedience is minus another 100. Or something.

---

I said anything done without faith is a sin. Obviously there was an opportunity to compound the sin with a wicked deed. But broadly speaking as to whether a person sinned, you cannot separate an action from the spirit with which it is done.

I get what you're saying--the nonbeliever had an opportunity to compound the sin with a more wicked deed. But I disagree with the notion that when a nonbeliever continues in the sin of unbelief, while avoiding the opportunity to be even more wicked, this somehow pleases God. Maybe because it's not as sinful as it could've been, He's not as angry as He could've been. But it's still a sinful occurrence, which can never please God.

Romans 1:18 says God's wrath is poured out against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. So both ungodliness and unrighteousness are displeasing to Him. That's why Hebrews 11:6 says "without faith it is impossible to please Him." Yes, the context is believers, but that doesn't change the meaning to say "without faith it is possible to please Him, but only if you're an unbeliever."

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Under your model, rejecting God's invitation, suppressing the truth that He has revealed, is not a sin?

---

Let's be clear, not my model. This is the model of the Church that has been confessed always. I am defending exactly and only two rules when it comes to this stuff: God is the source, beginning, and end of all good things (including man's free will, for what it's worth); and, man has free will. You can't break these rules.

Quote:

---

Quote:
It's possible to never believe, yet not sin?

---

The hypothetical scenario is just that. "EVEN IF". To say otherwise is the error of Pelagius.

And yes, obviously rejecting God's invitation and any disobedience is a sin. And not once, but every single time, because God is patient and longsuffering and loves mankind.

---

I'm sorry if I offended you by referring to "your model," instead of the EOC's model, and posing those questions. I was really trying to nail down what you were saying about unbelief and sin. I understand now that you agree unbelief itself is a sin, just not as sinful as it could be if coupled with wicked deeds.

The only nit I would pick is with regard to the bolded part. It suggests that unbelief has discrete occurrences, rather than being continuous.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And we're all bound for eternal death--and by that I assume you mean the second death, the lake of fire--even if we never sin? We're convicted because of Adam's sin and not our own?

---

You keep adding to my words and it seems like you're asking disingenuous questions.

As for death, no to both of your questions.Mortality is what I mean. The Orthodox church teaches Adam was created immortal, and would not have died. This is the first canon of the council of Carthage, since you're so very intent on avoiding the heresy of Pelagius.

We do not inherit Adam's sin, but we do inherit the consequence of his sin, which is death and mortality. Christ trampled down death, He defeated death once for all. In doing so He restored all men to immortality. "Death is swallowed up in victory" "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

The judgment is when Christ renders to each according to what he has done. So we need to be clear about death versus quality of eternal life.

---

Okay, I misunderstood you here, and I agree. I did not intend to misrepresent you or ask disingenuous questions. I was simply confused by the statement that a sinless man "would still need Christ because Christ renews our nature from that of death and into life. We all inherent the consequence of Adams sin, which is death." I thought you were saying, in effect, that the hypothetically sinless man was still hellbound.

Quote:

---

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come in."

It doesn't say I knock and regenerate you and then you hear my voice and open the door.

---

This is an eschatological picture, not one of regeneration. (It is in Revelation, after all.)

So we have Christ knocking on the door of the lukewarm church. Where do we have a picture of a groom knocking on the door, trying to rouse a drowsy bride? Song of Solomon 5. And she's slow to wake from her drowsiness, and she distracts herself with unimportant details, until it's too late. Like the virgins who didn't bring extra oil, she has missed the bridegroom.

This verse is about "perseverance in doing good seek[ing] for glory and honor and immortality," and avoiding spiritual apathy--not about regeneration.

This one from Fr Thomas (pray for us!) is even better.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/predestination

On free will and the creation.

We're not playing ping-pong with God. It isn't like he goes ping, and we go pong, and we go ping, and he goes pong, and we go ping-pong, ping-pong, back and forth. He sees if we pray, and then he acts, and then we pray, and then he acts, and one more prayer, then he does something. That's not the way it works. That is not the way it works.

God goes ping! from all eternity, with one big, huge ping! that reverberates in the life and the being of every single creature in the whole universe, certainly on the whole planet earthevery human being, every plant, every animal, and so on. God's act is there from all eternity, and in some sense, it is one act for everybody. It has its very particular aspects for each particular creature and human being, but it is a divine act that comes out of the divine eternity based on the divine foreknowledge.

But then, that act is experienced by us in time. So that's why I said in my analogy that God goes ping! from all eternity, and then we creatures go pong-pong-pong-pong-pong-pong-pong-pongevery day of our life. We are reacting-responding, responding-reacting, reacting-responding, asking, in relation to what God is doing, and how we understand it.

Quote:

---

PS do you baptize your infants as canon 2 says? Do you believe baptism is for the remission of sins? The canons say infants "therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." They said this is how the "Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it." So if you're going to align that Pelagius is a heresy, note well why. And note regeneration's purpose, and timing.

---

I have not had my young children baptized, though I probably would've by now if my church would do it. I'm still wrestling with whether it corresponds to circumcision (i.e., sign and seal of the covenant), and thus should be administered to infants. And I lean toward the idea that it (and the lord's supper) provide some grace conveyance/spiritual strengthening. But I think the view that water baptism is regenerative, in that the Holy Spirit arrives and indwells at the moment of baptism, and not before, conflicts with Acts 10:44-48.

It's not just baptism but baptism and chrismation.

How many tiems will you beat you're head against the "I think...because I read.." wall before you see that there's no need for it? The Church didn't fall away from God.

Also, I didn't object to you calling it my view because I felt like you were slighting the church or me. It's important because I'm not trying to synthesize original ideas here. With very few exceptions I'm trying to faithfully represent the teaching of the church and the fathers as opposed to my personal ideas. Now I agree with them, and I believe them. But it's not "I read and I think...".

Quote:

---

But I think the view that water baptism is regenerative, in that the Holy Spirit arrives and indwells at the moment of baptism, and not before, conflicts with Acts 10:44-48.

---

Also Rom. 4:
10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Just curious, what church do you go to?

k2aggie07 said:

---

We're not playing ping-pong with God. It isn't like he goes ping, and we go pong, and we go ping, and he goes pong, and we go ping-pong, ping-pong, back and forth. He sees if we pray, and then he acts, and then we pray, and then he acts, and one more prayer, then he does something. That's not the way it works. That is not the way it works.

God goes ping! from all eternity, with one big, huge ping! that reverberates in the life and the being of every single creature in the whole universe, certainly on the whole planet earth every human being, every plant, every animal, and so on. God's act is there from all eternity, and in some sense, it is one act for everybody. It has its very particular aspects for each particular creature and human being, but it is a divine act that comes out of the divine eternity based on the divine foreknowledge.

But then, that act is experienced by us in time. So that's why I said in my analogy that God goes ping! from all eternity, and then we creatures go pong-pong-pong-pong-pong-pong-pong-pong every day of our life. We are reacting-responding, responding-reacting, reacting-responding, asking, in relation to what God is doing, and how we understand it.

---

Nice analogy. But it seems to more congruent reformed theology where God orders everything from eternity with a giant omnipotent ping!, and then brings it to pass through us in time (pong-pong-pong), according to His unfrustratable purpose.