Jump to content
Online Baptist
davidgeminden

Spiritual bipolar nature of fallen mankind (an evil pole and a good Pole)

Recommended Posts

If just having knowledge of good and evil means/indicates that man is fallen and condemned, then why is not God’s nature fallen and condemned also because Gen. 3:22 states that man (Adam and Eve) has become like God knowing good and evil? However, the majority of scripture indicates that God's nature is pure good (holy, righteous and just); therefore, it must not be just possession of mere knowledge of good and evil that indicates that Adam and Eve (mankind) are condemned and fallen since God already told Adam and Eve what was the good thing to do and what the evil thing to do was before they sinned by disobeying God's instructions; therefore, I believe it must be an internal fallen corrupted bipolar nature (one pole is good and the other pole is evil) produced in Adam and Eve when they sinned by disobeying God’s command that condemns fallen mankind, and this fallen bipolar nature is what internally drives mankind to do good and evil (at the discretion of their free wills) and gives mankind an inherent internal knowledge of good and evil. Calvinist’s teach that fallen mankind has only an inherent single poled nature of evil that does not move/drive men and women to do good. Many Calvinists teaches that a person has to be indwelt first by the (Holy Spirit) (regenerated, born again) in order to be made to do the good thing of believing in Christ as their savior. All Calvinists teach that man has to have God first perform an effective magical supernatural transformation of a person's will into a believing will (even if they do not call it regeneration, born again) because they believe man's internal single poled evil nature does not have a good pole that internally drives man to do good, especially the good of making a free will decision to accept Jesus as their savior.

In the book of Romans, Paul gave evidence that mankind has a bipolar nature having two poles (one pole is good and the other pole is evil). In Rom. 2:15 the Holy Spirit states through the Apostle Paul that the gentiles have the law written in their hearts which I believe is biblical evidence of the good spiritual pole of the bipolar nature of fallen mankind. In Rom. 7:23 the Holy Spirit has the Apostle Paul state that a law of sin dwells in his members which I believe is biblical evidence of the evil spiritual pole of the bipolar nature of fallen mankind.

I believe humans are born corrupted bipolar sinners [The unsaved old man (Rom. 6:6; Eph.4:22; Col. 3:9)] having bipolar hearts/natures (“the heart is deceitful above all things….” – Jer. 17:9) with two spiritual poles (good and evil) because of Adam's and Eve's sin; that is, fallen/corrupted/sinful mankind has a spiritually bipolar nature, a good pole and an evil pole (Gen. 2:16-17; Gen. 3:1-7; Rom. 1:19, Rom. 2:14-15, Rom. 7:15-25) internally pulling on our free wills, rather than just externally pulling on our wills as took place with God’s external commands and instructions and the external temptation of the serpent that took place in the garden of Eden – thus, man knowing good and evil is the result of the fallen bipolar nature received when Adam and Eve sinned by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because one pole of man's bipolar fallen nature is evil, it inclines unsaved mankind and saved mankind towards sin and ensures that morally capable people will sin and not be able to live a perfect sinless life. The new man (born again person) is a Christian born again (indwelt by the Holy Spirit and should be willingly walking in/after the Spirit); that is, the new man has a good spiritual pole, an evil spiritual pole and the indwelling Holy Spirit and should be (of his own free will) willingly walking in/after the Spirit (Eph. 3:16, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 7:24-8:26; Gal. 5:16-25).

I refer to myself as an "inherent-free-willer" Christian, which means I believe in the inherent ability of fallen unsaved mankind to accept/believe or reject God's call/drawing/convicting/convincing/persuading teaching work using the creation, the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:18-20; Rom. 10:8-17; 1Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12; Luke 8:21; Jn. 15:26, 16:13; 2 Thess. 2:13).

My limited knowledge of early Christian history led me to conclude that when the early Christians concluded that fallen mankind had only one nature that was evil, the door was opened for pagan unconditional determinism and unconditional predestination to be easily injected into Christianity ultimately resulting in the development of an anemic puppeteering sovereign God concept and the TULIP soteriology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome friend.

I rhink you will find that most here prefer the Rose to any sort of tulip. 

How about you drop into the intro section and let us know a but about yourself and your salvation testomomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DaveW said:

Welcome friend.

I rhink you will find that most here prefer the Rose to any sort of tulip. 

How about you drop into the intro section and let us know a but about yourself and your salvation testomomy.

His Testimony can be found at his website: https://thoughtsbydcg.wordpress.com/dcgs-salvation-testimony/

And welcome to Online Baptist!

God Bless,

Daniel

Edited by (Omega)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DaveW said:

Welcome friend.

I rhink you will find that most here prefer the Rose to any sort of tulip. 

How about you drop into the intro section and let us know a but about yourself and your salvation testomomy.

A number of years back I looked into what Molinism's Rose teaches and did not agree with it because theoretically some people that are not saved in this present optimal world (creation) would be saved if God had created other different possible worlds (creations).

Here are some more of my thoughts. There are some Christians who say that God, in His infinite foreknowledge, looks into the possible futures of a person’s life (there could be almost an infinite number of possible futures) to see what that person would have done if they had heard the Gospel. Concerning this idea that God looks into the possible futures of a person’s life to see what that person would have done if they had heard the Gospel, I view as placing a limit on God’s foreknowing capability.

Some Christians say that God foreknows what a person will do when they hear the Gospel because God sees the past and the future as one big picture all at once since God is outside of time that He created as part of this universe. Again, I view this view as placing a limit on God’s foreknowing capability.

Some Christians (primarily Calvinists) say that God foreknows what a person will do when they hear the Gospel because God before He created this universe unconditionally chose who He would make (irresistibly) accept the Gospel (accept Christ as their savior). I view this view as placing a severe limit on God’s foreknowing capability.

My favorite way of viewing and talking about God’s foreknowledge of who will accept the Gospel (Christ as their savior) is as follows. God foreknows those whom He can convince/persuade to make a free will decision to accept His call/drawing to accept Christ as their savior. Yes, God foreknows more than just who will accept His call/drawing to accept Christ as their savior; God foreknows those whom He can convince/persuade to make a true free will decisions to accept His call/drawing to accept Christ as their savior; therefore God only needed to have only this one creation since he foreknows what real time information to present and what real time circumstances to bring about to convince them to make true free will decisions to truly accept Christ as their savior. My present understanding of Molinism’s optimal creation means some will not accept Christ who would have accepted Christ in some of the many other nonoptimal possible creations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, davidgeminden said:

God foreknows those whom He can convince/persuade to make a free will decision to accept His call/drawing to accept Christ as their savior. Yes, God foreknows more than just who will accept His call/drawing to accept Christ as their savior; God foreknows those whom He can convince/persuade to make a true free will decisions to accept His call/drawing to accept Christ as their savior; therefore God only needed to have only this one creation since he foreknows what real time information to present and what real time circumstances to bring about to convince them to make true free will decisions to truly accept Christ as their savior. My present understanding of Molinism’s optimal creation means some will not accept Christ who would have accepted Christ in some of the many other nonoptimal possible creations.

convince/persuade and free will decision are mutually exclusive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

convince/persuade and free will decision are mutually exclusive. 

Would you please provide your understanding concerning the correct definition of Free Will (as per your viewpoint that "convince/persuade and free will are mutually exclusive," and thus cannot exist together)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I'm missing something or misunderstanding, but I would think that if God is the one who "convinces/persuades" a person, that is still akin to Calvinism. 

The Holy Spirit convicts and draws them with the truth of the gospel. If the person is convinced/persuaded, it's because they believed that on their own...their response to the Holy Spirit's conviction and drawing is still their's to accept or deny. God knows who will be convinced/persuaded, but he doesn't cause them to be convinced/persuaded; otherwise, that negates free-will.

As to all of this talk of "Molinism" sounds like some kind of mysticism gone awry. God knows everything, and there is no "need" for alternative creations, possible futures, etc. He knows each choice a person makes (will make), and there is no reason for "what ifs"...he already knows "what".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Would you please provide your understanding concerning the correct definition of Free Will (as per your viewpoint that "convince/persuade and free will are mutually exclusive," and thus cannot exist together)?

Free Will: I do what I want, when I want, how I want. 

Convince/persuade - attempt at coercion into a certain act, thought, etc. 

Really, its not that hard, they are mutually exclusive. If you are attempting to talk me into something, you are attempting to bend my FREE WILL to your desire. Is that truly free will? No. It is an attempt by another to circumvent free will by coercive methods. Sorta like when I persuade my cat to get off the curio cabinet...I get the stick, he understands that he needs to get down. He's not doing it because he wants to do it, he's doing it because I'm "nudging" him into it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

Free Will: I do what I want, when I want, how I want. 

Convince/persuade - attempt at coercion into a certain act, thought, etc. 

Really, its not that hard, they are mutually exclusive. If you are attempting to talk me into something, you are attempting to bend my FREE WILL to your desire. Is that truly free will? No. It is an attempt by another to circumvent free will by coercive methods. Sorta like when I persuade my cat to get off the curio cabinet...I get the stick, he understands that he needs to get down. He's not doing it because he wants to do it, he's doing it because I'm "nudging" him into it. 

In John 6:44 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

1.  According to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself in John 6:44, what is absolutely required in order for an individual sinner to come unto Him through faith unto salvation?

2.  In light of this, did/does our Lord Jesus Christ Himself hold to a lost sinner's free will choice (as per your definition thereof)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Scott the person's FREE WILL makes the choice...

They are mutually exclusive if one looks at the literal definitions of the words. 

Words have meaning. There are established meanings and then meanings that people try to attribute to them. Coercion and persuasion are NOT conducive to Free Will..

But then again, I'm an engineer, I'm a literal sort. I don't bend things to try to make them fit my beliefs. I start with the words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put aside the context, the two terms are not mutualy exclusive.

Even your own definitions agree with that.

You stated it is AN ATTEMPT....

You can try to convince somebody of something, but unless you have a way of FORCING your will on them REGARDLESS of their own views and wishes, then they still have a choice.

In other words, an attempt to convince does not in any way negate free wiill choice.

The only things in this discussion that would be mutually exclusive are free will and forced conformity.

 

I am trying to convince you right now, but you have the free will to refuse or agree with my view.

In my view, this is a confusion of terms, not a disagreement of concepts.

(By the way, it is incredibly rare that anyone accuses Pastor Markle of misusing words - and ever more rare that they are right.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 1:39 AM, DaveW said:

Dude..... don't overthink things......

I meant the Rose of Sharon.....

I have never even heard of all that stuff you are talking about........

Hi DaveW,

I have a question about the Rose of Sharon.  I thought your use of the word rose was a soterological acrostic?  Is the phrase "Rose of Sharon" another soterological acrostic?  If it is a soterological acrostic, please inform me as to what it means or give me a url that defines the phrase.

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, davidgeminden said:

Hi DaveW,

I have a question about the Rose of Sharon.  I thought your use of the word rose was a soterological acrostic?  Is the phrase "Rose of Sharon" another soterological acrostic?  If it is a soterological acrostic, please inform me as to what it means or give me a url that defines the phrase.

Thanks,

Song of Solomon 2:1
(1)  I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.
 

No URL - just Bible......

Commonly understood to be referring to Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 39 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×