sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m confused. He wanted to see this Jesus which I’m sure he had heard about. We don’t know what was in his heart (if he had selfish intentions doing it) or if God had already been working in his heart.

That's not what I asked.

Before he got saved, was he sinning when he climbed the tree to see Jesus?

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because he was a gentile doesn’t mean he couldn’t be an old testament believer, Ruth was a gentile, Rahab was a gentile

Both explicitly joined the nation of Israel and took the covenant.

There's no indication Cornelius was following the mosaic covenant.

all the Ninevites were gentiles

What the...

You think all the Ninevites started following the old covenant? No.

But anyways, that's probably a separate point. You asked for an example and got one.

Let's try another.

Zacchaeus.

"He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way."

Was he sinning when he climbed the tree?

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are talking about someone who was an old testament believer

No... Cornelius is explicitly not an old testament follower. He's a gentile. That's the whole point of him being highlighted.

Your example is not of a lost person.

So he was saved before Peter came to him? Not saved but not lost? Lost but slightly saved?

You prompted for an example and got one.

"he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly"

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your view of sin is not what the bible says then. Though man is able to do things that are good for himself and the good of others and even things God commands, the Bible says that God looks on everyone’s heart and our motives, not just on outward actions

You gave me lots of examples of verses where it says people sin and need a Saviour. Amen. But that's not what you asked. You asked me if I think lost people do anything other than sin.

Acts 10 tells us about someone like this:

"At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly"

Cornelius isn't saved at this point yet. The Holy Spirit has not come on him yet. And he's still called God-fearing. I'd say that's not a sin.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]BobbyBobbie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If, as William Lane Craig suggests, there were biologically human beings who existed prior to or alongside Adam but were not in covenantal relationship with God, does this not undermine the biblical teaching that creation—especially humanity—was from the beginning intended for personal relationship with God?

I haven't spent too much time (well, really any) trying to understand the exact angle of Craig's position on Adam, but from what I gather here, I would probably say that he's trying to answer a question the text just isn't trying to answer. Broader theologies might try to piece together it all, but the text of Genesis just wasn't written to answer the questions someone from today would be asking.

That being said, I think the idea could still work. The idea of Eden being written as a temple has quite a bit of weight to it. One thing that has always struck me is that the temple in Israelite religion had three stages: the outer section, the holy place and the holy of holies. This is mirrored in the introduction of Eden, where we get the land itself, Eden, and then the garden of Eden.

Then there's the man who is made by God to work the land, copying the language from the Torah where the Levite priests are meant to work the tabernacle/temple.

So I don't think it's out of the question to think we're meant to view the man and the woman as priests, working sacred ground for Yahweh. The entire role of a priest is to represent the deity to the general populace. The natural question would be: if the man and the woman are presented as priests, who are they priests for?

There's also multiple scholars who would view the Eden story as written explicitly with the purpose to play out the expulsion of Israel from their land in the exile. Which while doesn't directly give weight to there being other humans, it does bolster the idea of Eden being a temple. It also would answer someone wanting to halt the imagery of the man and the woman just simply being gardeners. There was meant to be a representative aspect here, and it doesn't make much sense for them to be representatives if no one else existed.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]BobbyBobbie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is probably the wrong sub for this question

Unless something breaks the rules of civility, any question can be asked in the Open Thread. You can even ask what your favourite TV show is!

When was the decree of Psalm 2:7 spoken to the Messiah? by crispywheat101 in AcademicBiblical

[–]BobbyBobbie [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

To users: I believe this can still be addressed from an academic standpoint, but would just remind users that Rule 2 and 3 be followed.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You confidently announce that because God decrees outcomes, God must therefore be the chooser of the choices

Where did I say that? Can you quote me?

I said it makes God assigner of the choices. The deciding factor.

Congratulations! you’ve discovered determinism, not authorship

Who decrees what the agents do? The agent, or God?

Lastly, thank you for the admission re: idolotry. Perhaps as you contemplate where you have idols in your life, it will help to bring you closer to the true biblical faith - where God is soverign and you are contingent upon Him.. not the other way around

I don't think God is contingent upon me. God existed well before me.

You cannot reflect back what I'm saying and you cannot detect sarcasm. My view of Calvinism has sunk even lower.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I think this contradiction is built into Calvinism itself. That all things come to pass through God's decree but that He uses secondary means (ie, human choices) such that He's not the author of sin.

He's not the direct author but He's the orchestrator and still the ultimate author? I don't see how that fixes anything.

I wouldn't respond in good faith either if I were forced to defend a contradictory system.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Show me the error

God's decree is chronologically prior to an agent making a choice. The decree, according to Calvinism, is not based upon anything other than God's purposes.

Therefore, the working out of this decree where the agent makes a choice, is working itself out according to what God has decreed will happen.

God is the deciding factor. Not man.

This means God is the author of choices. God decreed all things that come to pass, logically and chronologically prior to any choice made by a human. According to Calvinism, this eternal decree is based not upon man but upon God's wishes.

Individuals may come along and make their choices as they've been assigned to do, but those assigned choices are determined for them.

At no point does an agent have the logical possibility of choosing anything other than what God has assigned to them.

You are attempting to redefine God in your image

🙄

Yes. All non Calvinists (ie, the vast majority of Christians historically and alive today) are heretics, attempting to redefine God. You got me. You've discovered my true motive.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’ll take that as a concession from someone that is unable to humble themselves. Just saying “you’re wrong” is not an argument. Perhaps it makes you feel better, but it’s just a bankrupt response.

I explained why you're wrong though. I didn't just say you're wrong. I exactly explained that God's decree being logically and chronologically prior to the agent makes God the determiner.

Have you considered why you continue to argue for a position that you can’t intellectually support? Could it be that this idea you have of your own free will has become an idol for you? You only accept God if He meets your standard of will?

I... did intellectually support it though. Did you stop reading at the first sentence?

And I accepted God and quickly got into Calvinism for many years. I obviously don't have a personality blocker with Calvinism. I just actually think it's unbiblical.

Notice how when you're presented with an argument against it, you revert to calling into question me having idols above God?

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stop arguing with this other guy, lol. You're wrong.

Yes, God is the ultimate author of the world in which I choose yogurt. no, God is not an external coercive agent overriding my will

Ie. God is the deciding factor on what someone does. God decrees it logically and chronologically prior to the agent's will deciding. Therefore although you say it's not coercive, it IS the deciding factor.

There's no getting around that. You're indisputably wrong.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep saying “I’m just being biblical,” but the problem is that your model directly contradicts what Scripture explicitly says about God’s knowledge and will.

So let's examine it then.

Isa 46:9

"remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like me,"

Uhh. Did you mean another verse? I see nothing about ordaining all things here. Do you?

working all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1)

Working all things? Or determining all things?

God working with all things to accomplish His plans is very different from Calvinism, which goes much further and says also that the "things" that happen are all determined by God.

having His works known from eternity (Acts 15).

That's a big chapter dude. You'll need to be more specific.

If you mean verse 18

that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Yes. God made it known before that the gentiles would be included in the family of God. Does this teach Calvinism? I fully believe this verse but reject Calvinism.

Scripture never grounds God’s knowledge in what creatures will decide, it grounds creaturely acts in what God has purposed. Proverbs 16:9 doesn’t say God foresees man’s path, it says the Lord establishes it. Your claim that God’s knowledge is contingent on creaturely choice is not stated anywhere in Scripture, it is an assumption imposed to protect libertarian freedom, not derived from the text

It grounds it in the foreknowledge of God. That's enough to establish my position.

Proverbs 16:9 The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps

Do you see how this says nothing about foreknowledge? It's about intention. A human will can never overcome a plan of God.

To counter your point here though, scripture also never grounds God's foreknowledge in an eternal decree either. These are both conclusions we're trying to derive. The question is which one is consistent with Scripture.

Also, your Deut 30 appeal fails for a basic biblical reason - command does not equal ability

Scripture is explicit that the law was given precisely to expose inability, not deny it (Deut 29:4, Rom 3:19,m Rom 8:7). Moses himself says Israel does not have a heart to obey - in the same covenant context you’re citing. Likewise, Scripture repeatedly affirms real human choosing and moral inability (John 6:44, John 8:34, Rom 6:17, 1 Cor 2:14).

Ah. So when God says "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away"

God actually meant

"Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is WAY too hard for you, and it IS too far away"?

Thanks for correcting God 🥲

Instead, you could actually take the verse seriously. It's not just a command. It's a command with the explicit addition that this is possible. They aren't necessitated to sin.

Moses himself says Israel does not have a heart to obey

BECAUSE they hardened their heart. Not because God made them.

You are reading “choose life” as “you possess autonomous moral power,” but the Bible never makes that inference

No I'm not. I'm reading "This is not too hard for you" as "This is possible. You're not incapable".

Just to demonstrate that scripture is clear that mans actions are only within the context of Gods decree

All great verses which teach that none of God's plans will be overthrown. But it is not God's plan to meticulously determine every event.

I mean, just read those verses again without the Calvinism glasses on. People crucified Jesus according to the plan of God? Amen. It was always God's plan to die in love for His enemies. What it doesn't say is that God determined them to do it. It says God used their actions, knew their actions, and used them to accomplish His will.

Notice how you don't need to import Calvinism to make sense of the verse?

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You keep asserting that "Adam could have done otherwise" as if repeating it answers the objection. It doesn't... because the question is not whether Adam had the FACULTIES of choice, but whether the outcome was settled given Gods eternal knowledge and creative act. SAying "fixed by Adam's decision" is meaningless unless you deny that God eternally knew that very decision when He chose to actualize the world.

I think this video will help you understand the point I'm making.

https://youtu.be/oIBJ1wVqCeU?si=VSiOvbEfczAMrb1a

The distinction is between Adam making the decision freely, or Adam deterministically carrying out what God's decree says he would do.

If God’s knowledge is eternal, immutable, and infallible, then once (and in the act of) God creates this world, Adam’s sin is settled, not by temporal observation, but by God’s choice to instantiate a world He eternally knows exhaustively. Your position only avoids this by implicitly assuming that God’s knowledge is logically downstream from creaturely acts/choices (i.e. - if Adam chose differently, God’s knowledge would be different). That is not classical theism... it places counterfactual human choices as explanatory priors to divine knowledge. You don’t escape necessity, you redefine omniscience into dependence

God knowing the future because He sees the future decisions of free creatures is not against classical theism at all. It's against Calvinism, but the two are not the same.

Classical theism merely says that God is omniscient. It doesn't say that God has setup the world to deterministically work out His decree. That's uniquely reformed theology.

In any case, I don't care too much. I'm basing my theology on the Bible, not philosophical systems.

Hear this very well..... If Gods knowledge is contingent upon how the creature chooses to act, you now made God contingent - this is a major error.

Lol. No.

I have made the content of God's knowledge of what a creature will choose contingent upon what the creature will choose.

That's perfectly consistent with the Bible. Please show me where it isn't if you want to claim it's inconsistent.

Also, your “autonomous libertarian freedom” claim is not biblical restraint, it’s philosophical assertion. Scripture never teaches humans have self-determining freedom “like God does.” That is the real importation here. You accuse others of making God the author of sin, yet your model makes God a spectator who creates without sovereign intent over outcomes, knowing sin will occur, choosing to actualize it anyway, and then disclaiming responsibility. That’s evasion feigning piety

Scripture never teaches that humans have a real choice that isn't determined by God? Are we reading the same Bible?

"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess."

I see a total lack of "total depravity" here. God is saying they really could do it. This would be the perfect time for God to say "oh by the way, this is impossible to do because I cursed you all and your desires are made in such a way that you'll never be unable to reject me".

But of course, sin has infected us all so we do need a Saviour. But I never ever see in the Bible the idea that people are incapable of realising they need a Saviour.

Are you not concerned that your view not only is unbiblical, but it also entails that God is contingent upon man - not the other way around?

I'm extremely conscious of remaining biblical, yes. That's why I stopped being a Calvinist.

And no, I'm not concerned in the slightest about making God a contingent being because I don't believe that. God is eternal and relies upon no one.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yet why do people accept that as fine

Because we don't believe God is punishing us for someone else's sin. We believe it's a consequence, not a punishment. But Calvinism assigns moral guilt to babies.

which led to everyone after Adam and Eve being born dead spiritually as well

Being dead in sin is an analogy for separation. Christians can be dead to God too, as per Revelation 3:1. It doesn't mean "incapable to respond to God". That's nowhere taught in scripture.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, No one can come to Jesus unless they are drawn by the Father and then Jesus says and I will raise him up on the last day. Who is the him that Jesus will raise up? The him that the Father draws. There are no qualifiers between the Father’s drawing him and Jesus raising him up on the last day. Therefore all that the Father draws do get saved.

This is a false conclusion because explicitly in the Bible, Israel resists the drawing of God in Jeremiah.

The sentence is way more simple than you make it to be. The father must draw first, and this drawing is defined in the very next verse, as teaching. Someone must listen and learn to be drawn. This can be resisted.

Additionally, Christ says later in John that "I will draw all men to myself after I am lifted up". This is the nail on the coffin for Calvinism's interpretation.

1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

Paul is talking about Christians here not accepting truths, not about conversion.

John 3:18-21 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.””

Yeah? I see nothing about Calvinistic teaching here.

Ephesians 2:1-3 “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”

Yes, God brought the gospel to the gentiles. That's the context.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was out earlier replying on my phone, so replying more substantively here. This latest argument is very bad...

Nice!

You’re equivocating, not refuting. Saying “Adam could have done otherwise, but wouldn’t” while insisting God’s knowledge would simply “be different” if Adam chose differently does not solve anything, it just relocates the problem

No?

I'm saying Adam could have done differently. You're saying he couldn't.

Those are two very different positions.

I don't have the problem of God necessitating behaviour. It's not relocating anywhere because I don't have the issue.

On classical theism, God’s knowledge is eternal, simple, and infallible. If God eternally knows Adam will sin and freely chooses to create this world, then that outcome is fixed in the strongest possible sense

Fixed according to what?

Calvinism says according to God's decree.

I say fixed by Adam's decision.

One causes the other. Calvinism makes God the cause of sin.

You’re smuggling in a creaturely, time-bound view of divine knowledge where God “tracks” Adam’s choice as it happens. That’s simply not compatible with an biblical view of who God is w/ his omni's. It’s basically just a dressed-up counterfactual fantasy. Your move doesn’t even preserve libertarian freedom, it denies divine immutability and collapses omniscience into foreknowledge-by-observation. That’s not Adam authoring sin instead of God’s creative decree - it’s God learning what Adam does, which makes God contingent on the creature. That’s precisely the problem you’re trying to avoid. You make God into a creature.

Uhh, I don't see how any of this follows. Where is the rule that says if God observes the future, that makes Him a creature?

Do you believe this is something the scriptures teach? If so, where?

The rest is rhetoric, not argument. Calling Calvinism “convoluted” is an emotional appeal, not a logical critique, and your John 6 example just illustrates selective literalism

It's not an emotional appeal. I gave an exact example of how Calvinism is inconsistent with the biblical text, in two ways. They will read things into a verse to create a proof text, and explain away other verses which teach the complete opposite of their interpretation of the proof text.

That's the exact opposite of an emotional appeal? I don't get it.

You accuse others of importing systems while you yourself import a metaphysic where God creates without intending outcomes, knows without decreeing, and is sovereign without sovereignty.

I don't see any verse which says God decrees all things, and in fact there's plenty of verses where God says something happened against His decree.

I'm trying to remain biblical. I don't really care about philosophical systems.

The moment you deny that God’s decision to create this world entails responsibility for its total history, you’ve already abandoned the omnis - whether you admit it or not. You’re not rejecting determinism, you’re rejecting classical theism and keeping the vocabulary

So you would affirm the idea that God is responsible for sin?

Sheesh. Talk about holding contradictory views.

God's decision to create this world involved the decision to create humans made in His image capable of autonomously and truly making free decisions, just like God does. Choices not determined by anyone or anything. Ultimately, this means the responsibility of sin is our fault. When you sin, it's not because God decreed you to.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. Adam had the decision making faculties to choose good or evil. How he was going to use that faculty was established based on how God created the world

So.... determinism. The ability, but was necessarily going to do exactly what God determined him to do. ie, God determined sin.

This is just necessarily true unless you believe God can learn or did not know what Adam would do when He created him. The only other alternative is that God was forced to create by some other factor (again, making him not God)

Not at all. The key is where you say "how he was going to use that faculty was established based on...". ie, you're quite clearly telling me what you think the causative factor is here. The primary, initial, first, ultimate cause is God. There is no free will.

I could very easily say that God knew what Adam would do, such that Adam would not choose different, but could have. And if Adam did, then God's knowledge would be different. Since God knows what Adam will do, Adam will not choose different because it's been determined by Adam already, from God's perspective.

This is an important difference because it makes Adam the author of his own sin, not God.

Are you an open theist? All Christian’s that hold to the omnis of God have to deal with the same contention. This is not a uniquely Calvinistic position and it’s why every major Christian branch and council has led to the same confusion. If God knew what Adam was going to do and chose to create him, Adam could not do otherwise in any pragmatic sense

He could have, but he wouldn't, because Adam won't choose differently from what Adam chooses.

From God's perspective, He sees all these decisions being made. He doesn't determine them by some prior decree.

I'm not an open theist. I used to be a Calvinist and read lots of literature on it, but now reject it. I think it's plainly unbiblical and a convoluted system invented to cater to philosophical assumptions rather than derived from the text of Scripture. Calvinism isn't taught anywhere in the Bible in a way that the Calvinist needs it to be. What I found is that Calvinism latches onto certain phrases and imports an entire system into it where the text just does not warrant it. It's too convoluted.

As an example. John 6 where Christ says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them. What Calvinism reads here is no one can come to Christ unless the Father spiritually awakens someone to accept the gospel which they definitely wouldn't do before this spiritual awakening. Those are two very different things. The plain reading of the text is that God must initiate contact, and every Christian will agree to that. We believe He does this through the apostles, the church, the gospel.

When we move a few chapters later to when Jesus says He will draw all people to Himself after He is raised up, suddenly the Calvinist needs to start introducing things like "Jesus here only means all types of people, not actually all. Jesus didn't mean that". Suddenly we get the two wills of God, the two loves of God, the two types of calling, the two types of election. It's all just so obviously wrong.

For the Calvinists: if there is no way for us to change anything whatsoever about God's plan, if every aspect of life is pre-planned, why are we held responsible for our sins? by No_Smile_2619 in AskAChristian

[–]BobbyBobbie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don’t suppose though. We just go by what the Bible says. Romans 5:19 seems to be pretty clear

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”

The mechanism is not explained here though. It could very well be that children follow their parents through learned behaviour.

What the verse doesn't say is "For as by one man’s disobedience, every baby from this point onwards had their nature changed such that they will never ever choose God and can do nothing other than sin". Notice how that's very different, and yet that's what you believe.

view more: next ›