The Augustinian interpretation of "total depravity" posits a DELIBERATE motive of "sin". This is what justifies the harsh judgment of Hell, and also according to the derivative Calvinist argument, that God leaves the majority of mankind trapped in this state, and is "gracious" just to save "any".
It's like if you jump off a roof, you're 'lucky' if someone comes to save you. Your default, "freely chosen" fate, is death, so you shouldn't complain it is 'unfair', as you are plummeting to the ground.
Problem is, the analogy doesn't fit, as it's based on the assumption of what they call "federal headship"; this deliberate initial turn away from God was not actually done by you, but by our progenitor, and He simply "charged" us all with it. (So a somewhat closer analogy would be your mother jumped off the roof, and you were born as she plummeted, and then you were "charged" with "jumping" IN her, and predisposed to the same fate; both following the "natural" course of gravity. This doesn't cover each person's individual commission of sins; i.e. personal culpability, but right now we're discussing how we got into the dilemma in the first place, which involves the central issue of "God's sovereignty"). The end result, of you being trapped in Hell without a chance of not going there, is plugged into Romans 9 (which is describing something else altogether).
It only makes sense given an Origenist concept of the preexistence of all souls. The later Church fails to realize how much their doctrine is influenced by him and his "Alexandrian school" (just as with Athanasian-Nicene theology).
So with sin as deliberate hostility toward God, the instinctual basis of our behavior can be dismissed and relegated to just another manifestation of this active "rebellion". (And an "excuse" to avoid "responsibility" for this "sin").
In this system, there is no such thing as an honest "mistake". Any "error" is really a deliberate attack on God, and since "His people" are on His side, it's an attack against them as well.
So this shaped all of Christian history. It created the "us vs them" mentality that drives many Christians' beliefs today, leading to much of the strife between them and larger society. The Christians built a "godly America", and it was taken from them by the "godless", and they now demand it back. Only they have noble intentions; everyone else has an evil agenda.
The entire generation that rebelled a half century ago wasn't reacting to legitimate problems of hypocrisy and overboard rigidity, power abuse and neuroses in the generations that raised them. It was all a big conspiracy by "the forces of godlessness" who "captured their minds" from right under our noses, through the "education" and "media".
The racial minorities fighting for equality only wanted "free handouts" and were really better off under slavery and segregation, but the Leftists (and the "globalists" or "deep state" behind them) took advantage of them in their plot to destroy America, and this is what along the way destroyed the inner cities for decades, as well as the economy.
Evolutionism was a conspiracy to destroy "Western civilization" (which is what all of these issues always comes back to, somewhere, eventually), by destroying the "faith" that guided the "morality" (through fear). At first, Christians claimed the Devil planted the fossils. Then, they later accepted the fossil record, but tried to enter the game of archaeology themselves with "Creation Science" to say the evidence really supported their strict interpretation of a "young earth". (Nothing in life even looks like it might support it, or at least be ambiguous and cause people to wonder, and just ignore the scientists showing why many Creationist arguments can't be considered science; using Romans 1, they'll say God "showed" everyone the truth of the young earth, but they "held the truth in unrighteousness" all so they could "hold onto their sin" and not have any "accountability". That's what it's all about!)
Continuing in this strain, climate change is a conspiracy against the "freedom" of Western business, and the evidence really supports the idea that pumping all sorts of pollutants into the air has no effect on the global ecology. In both cases, the scientists are the ones seen as going against the evidence, all to fulfill their "agenda". As one meme aptly puts it: "How sad it must be believing that scientists, scholars, historians, economists and journalists have devoted their entire lives to deceiving you, while a reality TV star with decades of fraud and exhaustively documented lying is your only beacon of Truth and Honesty".
Fighting against "secular humanism", some concluded "mental illness is a choice". Psychotherapy then is just a plot to remove people from "responsibility" before God (whose job is Christians to enforce).
LGBT, (through their own personal lives) are just "jaded", from overindulgence in sex (and so had to try something else), and are also trying to destroy the nation. People condemning them may claim to be actually "loving" them by trying to "save their souls", but they quickly make it clear as they continue talking, that what they are really trying to save is "the nation" (meaning their own interests, such as a perceived right to rule granted by God, to a "righteous nation". Based on a set of scriptures directed to Old Testament Israel).
All of this is leading to the "One world end-time deception", where all of biblical prophecy is to be fulfilled "soon", (even though it's no longer "soon" from when it was written, and so must have been referring to something else). And it's all about us (Western Christians), the "good guys" (who'll be 'raptured' away before the real bad stuff starts, but nevertheless still must fight for their power now).
The world will all unite, under the Satanically-led phony premises of "love", "unity" and "acceptance", against God's holy people, displaying [His nature of] hatred and disunity (even fighting amongst themselves when they see each other "compromising", in the name of keeping the Church "pure") in His war against "sin". So hatred and discord are good and from God, and love is bad and the deception of Satan. (None of them sees anything wrong with this scenario! In passages like Christ's "I came not to bring peace, but rather a sword" you have to look at who would be using that "sword" against whom!)
So in the midst of all this, Trump learns how to speak their language, and all of his moral and scriptural lapses no longer matter. He's "on our side", and so the argument is now that he's human and forgiven, so the "liberals" are just using all of this in their conspiracy against the "unborn", and other "Christian values". On a Christian board I swing by, anyone who questions Trump is loudly blasted as a "DNC operative" sent to the board just to attack him!
Tracing this kind of thinking back through this "historic Christian orthodoxy"; from the fourth century to now, if a group got the doctrine of the Godhead wrong, it's not because the Church's understanding of scripture on the subject is fallible and limited, and perhaps there are some points they have glossed over that others pick up (like the implications of the Son specifically being "generated" from the Father, while the Father is ungenerated, which is what made the symmetrical language of the official Creeds questionable to many). It's a deliberate "attack" on "the Truth" (presumed to have been handed down from the apostles, even though history shows the doctrine developed), by "the enemies of Christ", and thus to be strongly condemned with "anathemas", which as the power of the Church grew, often translated into executions! Today, they're deemed lost and hellbound, for not believing in "the real" Jesus of "historic orthodoxy".
But even among the so-called "orthodox"; Luther, Calvin, the Catholics talked hostilely to and about not only the "heathen" or "heretics", but even each other. We look back at this and think nothing of it (while many talk about how "uncivil" modern generations are).
Of course, detractors to "Christian orthodoxy" followed suit, and returned in kind, so that sects like Jehovah's Witnesses and various sabbatarian groups such as Armstrongism portray "traditional Christian" beliefs and practices as having been brought into the Church by the "pagans", who were apparently on this mission to corrupt the Church and take it over.
Inasmuch as we see Christian doctrine taking shape in the early centuries, it looked like they had more of a point (hence, me getting sucked into the latter movement), but in reality, the pagans had no desire to change the Church. They minded their own business, as their religions had room for everything. Even the emperor only demanded worship of himself from the religious groups and did not otherwise try to change their beliefs or practice (as Armstrong himself pointed out in his synopsis of Church history), and the trouble came because the Jews could not accept that, and yet had managed to get immunity from this rule, and excommunicating the Christians among them left the fledgling Church vulnerable to the emperor's demand. This was the source of much of the "persecution" the first century Church faced, and why the Temple system was what was actually portrayed as the corrupt "Babylon" of prophecy, not some literal "pagan" religion. (And even those who did seem "pagan", such as Simon the Sorcerer, and maybe even many of the "gnostics" were actually errant Israelites, not Greeks or Romans!)
So the real movement trying to take over, control and corrupt the Church wasn't the "lawless pagans", it was Christ-rejecting, Law-preaching Israel, which similarly took a "we're God's people and the 'sinners' of the world are deliberately against us, and God promised us rule over it" assumption. The Messiah sent to them did not meet their expectations, so they turned against Him and His followers.
The Church would ironically eventually pick this up right where Israel left off (while continuing to embrace rather than reject Christ), instead of running counter to this pattern. The Gospel became a fight between God and man (and Satan) over pleasure versus pain, with God making a sort of "deal" with us 'fallen' creatures, where He will "save" whoever's willing to trade the pleasure for pain. (Even if He's the one to make them willing, as the purer Augustinians will argue). Most of course go for the pleasure, just to spite Him.
Popular old-time evangelical leader A.W. Tozer is cited:
We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.
A term like "ultimatum" is clearly the language of aggression and CONTROL, and while they insist it is God's control, it is still coming through them (the preachers), and they are very angry that they have been losing it for centuries. So they take themselves out of the equation of 'sin', and believe it is their mission to straighten everyone else up, but most people today won't listen, so this creates the "us vs them" premise of war, which they think is justified, because, hey; "we're not supposed to be diplomats!" (This is also why many of them would think Trump was "God's man" specifically because of how offensive he is! So they go and make war with the world and then it confirms their whole premise of being "persecuted", when it fights back. So what we end up with, is that no one else has any right to their basic survival instinct of resisting being controlled. God just sent you to command everyone else with no resistance, else, it's THEM persecuting YOU! You have to presume that your part in the battle is "correction", and this is what God has called you to do; i.e. it's "just preaching the Gospel", and thus, their resistance is "persecuting you for the Gospel". But then that turns "the Gospel" into a message of war against others! It was only "war" to the religious institution seeking rule via a "warrior" messiah. Which sounds a lot like conservative Christian leaders!)
All of this makes us "contrary to all men", which wasn't a good thing to be, the way Paul describes it, but rather marked the enemies of Christ! (1 Thess.2:15) We were rather instructed to "If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men." (Rom. 12:18), which becomes impossible with this "deliberateness" doctrine that has us geared up both defensively and offensively!
Continuing with this sentiment is a quote is made of Walter Martin, who defended what he called "the historic orthodox Christian faith". Circa 1975:
Christianity today is in conflict; in conflict against the secular world; in conflict with world religions--which are hostile to us--in conflict against the Kingdom of the Cults--and the Occult; in conflict against corrupt theology in our theological seminaries--and oftentimes in our pulpits; in conflict against all forms of evil surrounding us on all sides. And it is a foolish person indeed, who does not recognize that the Church was born in conflict; lives in conflict, and will triumph in conflict. We have been called to be soldiers of the Cross.
(Christianity In Crisis, CD Rom)
The thing is, this makes it sound as if the Church today was initially minding its own business and everyone is coming up against them just because they have Christ. That was the way it was originally in the NT Church of the first century. They were being opposed primarily by the religious establishment of the day (the originally God-ordained "conservatives", NOT the "liberals"; and, as mentioned, by the "godless pagans", only inasmuch as the religious establishment turned them over to them!) They gave their testimony of Christ, but weren't trying to take "back" any "culture" (for they never had one to take back, unless they were Israelites in which case they gave up that physical inheritance, as Christ taught).
It's a completely different scenario with this "historic orthodoxy", which right there by its own professed title is now the religious establishment like the one in Christ's day, that believes in DOING most of the confronting against "the world", (in the name of "spreading truth" and trying to maintain "order" in society with parts of the Law) likewise, in defense of their previous power. No one ever picks up this important difference.
So then, conversion is portrayed as God removing this "nature" from us. This is what allows them to take themselves out of the equation, when judging the sins of society and the rest of humanity. All evil must be the fault of outside influences (Darwin, Marx, Freud, "compromisers" within, etc.) Anything can then be justified because the "spirit-filled saints" are doing or favoring it, and their natures have been "changed", so they only do (presumably) what's right.
(Hence, Trumpism, and preaching "freedom" for themselves, while denying it for others. He clearly showed his waffling position on his own need for personal repentance, or at least placed it on "Communion" ["that's asking forgiveness, you know, it's a form of asking forgiveness."] Yet, it's apparently his position on abortion that shows he's "changed". [Substituting one "work" for lack of others, which is precisely what James writes against. Add to that stuff that is not even biblical "works", but if anything might be contrary, but goes along with the "values" of the "changed" people such as Israel, our borders, tax cuts for the rich, etc.]. So all that other stuff is just his "past", and thus "forgiven". Or, "we're not electing him to be our pastor"; even though they always placed much higher moral demands on earlier elected leaders).
Cory Marquez of New Abbey Church in the sermon "Advent/With Us" (https://newabbey.podbean.com/e/advent-with-us) points out how this "they're bad" (and God needs to fix that bad thing) doctrine (that Protestant theology became even "more obsessed" with) was used to "subjugate" the planet. "You [as white colonial Europeans] believe you've received the message that you're OK now, because this Jesus bled out for you. All of the people you're going to colonize; they're bad. And so you have the authority to do whatever you want to their lands, because you have 'salvation' for them".
This is why racism was not seen as sin in the past. Sin is man's active hostility towards God, NOT towards other men, who are only the aggressors in this hostility. So God can call people to execute some of His wrath on others, in the form of rule, if not sometimes extermination (as can be cited from the Old Testament. Of course, this was assumed to carry over to the New Testament as well, even though the Church was never commanded any of this).
The summation of the Law, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is turned on its ear, in favor of a pre-suppositional "will of God", or other concepts that aren't well defined for the subject, like "His Holiness". (Which means "set apart", but is often assumed to be this "thing" involving behavioral perfection that gets "offended", causing intense wrath towards men when they don't behave or repent).
The instinctual drives to pleasure and survival are (admittedly) still there in the convert, and presumed to be "forgiven" (and are only NOW allowed as forgivable "mistakes") once he has "done his part" and "given his life to Christ", and received the "new nature".
From there comes the notion they must "struggle" against this "old nature" to both "prove themselves saved", and to "grow". (The "sin" lies in the instinctual drive, but is not seen as caused by it, but rather the other way around. So then nature itself is what's "fallen", but then they're also on the other hand insisting it's absolute proof of divine "design" and moral imperative; as in the Romans 1 argument). This is "hard", but with "God's help", they are able to "overcome", in total contrast to "the world", that takes the "easy path" of just indulging in whatever feels good. THAT's what the world is presumed to be condemned by.
To see what "sin" really is, we should look at the biblical definitions:
Exposited: "transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4)
hermeneutical: "missing the mark" (hamartia)*
Both definitions agree, for the Law was the "mark" or "bullseye", and transgressing it was "missing" the mark, or "falling short" (Rom.3:23, hystereo, "behind").
*Marquez disputes the "missing the mark" definition, and argues it's "disturbing shalom" (peace), but then disturbing peace would be missing the mark (love), which is the actual Greek definition of the word! Other definitions in scripture, such as involving the "conscience" (James 4:17, 1 Cor.8, Rom.14:23, etc.) would also amount to "transgressing the Law", even if it's in its "spiritual" form.
(Now notice, there is nothing in these definitions about "deliberateness"!)
The two passages used to support sin as fist-shaking, "deliberateness" are the ones calling men in general (before being reconciled) "enemies" of God: Rom 5:10 "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Col 1:21 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled". This is echthros, which could mean stuff like "hateful" (active), "odious" (passive), etc. But it's describing our charged state as sinners, and the sinful actions we do, which are "at odds" with God (a better way to understand it), and still not [necessarily] the "deliberate" ("conscious" or unconscious) sense the Church has read into it.
So this doctrine of deliberate antagonism toward God totally confounds what "sin" really is (actually making it less than what it actually is), and makes it easier to see as something only "others" do.
It also makes nonbelievers protest that they don't feel this evil intent inside. It becomes a form of "gaslighting", as you're basically telling people "no matter what you think or feel, this 'shaking your fist at God' (as commonly portrayed in literature) is what you're doing, [and that's why God is so angry at you]!" (It's actually appealing to the "unconscious", which the more fundamentalistic Churches would otherwise strongly reject as a teaching of "godless pagan humanistic psychology". Yet they do use it when needing to "prove" these otherwise unprovable hidden evil motives in people. Meanwhile, the toned down modern version of hell insists we go because "we don't want Him", instead of Him angrily "punishing" us, but this just as much the same thing; about our deliberate animosity toward Him).
This too stems from the Augustinian-Calvinist concept of "depravity", where God really does expect men to stop, recognize and repent of sin (He's "shown" them), even when (in the case of electionism) He withholds from them the "ability" to do so. This even leads to God being "justified" in deliberately steering man the wrong way and making him "responsible" for it, such as in Calvin's claim He gives "reprobates" a "false faith" which he then "takes away" so they can be lost. (This is called "evanescent grace", and is obviously, not grace at all!) Also, "Augustine says that a feature of the Scriptures is obscurity and that obscurity is the result of sin: that is, God made the Scriptures obscure in order to motivate and challenge our fallen minds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_doctrina_Christiana
(Where does he even get his notion from? This is what has ensured that the Christian world is divided with everyone using the same scriptures, but coming up with different teachings, and condemning each other over them.
It then leads to the old rule that an individual is not supposed to try to understand the scriptures apart from Church authority. So much for "Sola Scriptura" as argued by Augustinian theology-holding "Reformation" views, some of which do contradictorily insist you shouldn't try to interpret scripture without the "creeds and confessions").
It should be easy to see why such a belief system would be very threatening to people (and anger-provoking; used as the ultimate proof it's "hard truth" they simply don't like; especially when it's hard to prove or disprove and appeals to something as shaky as "conscience", which they then dismiss as 'seared' if it doesn't agree with their beliefs and rules). But because they claim to be promoting the "Truth" of an angry, offended God, they can just steamroll over everyone with it, but then claim to be "persecuted" at the slightest pushback.
Such a lopsided system like this, where only their "humanity" figures, (when it comes to 'rights', 'grace' and 'benefits to civilization'; and others' 'humanity' only figures when it comes to 'sin', 'error' and 'smallness'), is NOT "Good News"! If anything, it's the same belief system of conquerors (with their intended subjects dehumanized), and hence why it gets lumped in with other forms of "superiority" and "discrimination" (even if the detractors' defensive actions may cross over into discrimination as well eventually).
So everyone is trying to censure and control others, before they control you, but the religious view is the one that starts it, both in being the once dominant view, with their need to try to 'restore' that, and also to 'save' others' souls through it.
It also, ever so ironically, ends up fostering sin in the converts themselves. If you've ever wondered how conservative Christians could preach so hard against sexual sin and homosexuality, and then fall into it themselves (and often the most vile and even "unspeakable" i.e. 1 Cor. 5:1 "not even named among the gentiles", such as child molestation), it's believing that as long as they are "officially" against it, and "fighting" it (shown most visibly by "making a stand" against it, meaning preaching loudly and publicly against it, especially in others), then this is the "evidence" they have "repented" of it (which is seen as the basis of 'justification"); now acknowledging that once justified, it's still possible to "slip" and "fall" (temporarily).
That's different than "wallowing" in sin. Or the other term, "practicing" sin (based on a translation of 1 John 5:8, which would otherwise appear to teach "perfectionism"). It's possible to fall into all sorts of big sins like that, but not actually be "practicing" them. The key is that you're not doing it "deliberately" (i.e."willfully", according to yet another scripture that's been taken out of its context) --you know, like all those other "sinners" outside of Christ who "do as they please" with no fear!
This page, criticizing Philip Yancey, who's seen as "too soft" on the gay issue: https://www.9marks.org/review/whats-so-amazing-about-grace-philip-yancey/ says "Yes, we are all sinners, but the difference between a Christian and those marchers is that the Christian cowers under the judgment of God and repents of his sin. Those marchers revel in their sin, celebrate it, and arrogantly sing 'Jesus loves me.'" (This presumes that the gays are "celebrating" it as "sin" [i.e. agreeing or believing themselves that it is sin, but doing it anyway, you know; as in Rom. 1:32] and ignoring that many have answered that claim, and also ignores all the "sins" that "Christians" reveled in, but decided weren't sin, such as racism and colonialism, but supposedly without affecting their status as "godly Christians"! The love of Confederate monuments is basically "arrogantly celebrating" belief in God's support of a "Lost Cause" that centered around the subjugation of other people, justified by gross scripture-twisting. But they never see it that way!)
When I argue with "Torah observers" ("Messianic" or otherwise), who (as the most consistent in "Law" and "obedience"-preaching) openly reject "faith/grace alone", this effort-based premise is what they give. Salvation is to "keep trying", and "repent after every sin".
But this, while creating a long-term overall [fear based] motivation against sin, really does no good in the moment of a sin, and especially a momentary, impulsive passion-driven one (that may very likely be really egregious and damaging to other parties). That's how these "falls" occur.
If you tell any of these people that "personal repentance" is not needed for salvation (such as the "Fulfilled view"), they will roar that you're "removing all morality" and "allowing sin to run rampant". But we see it doesn't even really deter sin in their own lives, but if anything, may be having the opposite effect! Romans 7 really comes to life here.
To realize sin is the falling short of the Law that comes from our instinctual drives (and the sense of SHAME, from taking on the "knowledge of good and evil", which was the scriptural definition of the "Fall"), and that the Law was to show us the futility of our efforts (which "orthodox" Protestantism professes in theory) removes the whole "deliberateness" assumption without denying "sin", and keeps converts in the equation of "sin" that may affect life negatively (i.e. it's not all everyone else's fault). It then becomes the reminder of their own sin (that the old Church figured constant "preaching on sin" was to accomplish).
It would show them how much they too are still driven by instincts, just like the rest of the world they can observe clearly. (Like when they tell others to be "thankful" and not "anxious" about life, while fighting and trying to maintain control against others they see as trying to 'destroy' them).
The whole notion of "deliberateness" is exemplified in the common interpretation of Romans 1, and the epitome of this view is shown in a video of popular evangelical leader RC Sproul, with a big smile on his face, arguing this "deliberateness" position, as the basis for "our defense of the Christian faith [which] is informed by the fact that God has made Himself known to everyone on earth (Rom. 1:18-23)".
https://youtu.be/fC1noGNiJKY
Someone sharing it on social media said: "Takes some real guts to go in front of a group of atheists, and start by saying 'you already know very well that there is a God, and your problem is not that you don't know that God exists, your problem is you hate the God that you know exists. So your problem is not an intellectual one, it's a moral one'."
The passage is not referring to "the whole human race"; it's clear that Romans is about ISRAEL You can see this at the start of the next chapter. It was a people God had "SHOWN" Himself to, meaning SPECIAL revelation; not "general" revelation. But because the chapter mentions "nature" and "creation", that makes it sound like it's about the physical universe. But "the world" and "creation" were metaphors for Israel (as can be seen in OT prophecy).
The passage is about a specific people (e.g. "THEIR women"; "THE men", plus, again, ch.2), and both "aion" and even "kosmos" are used for Israel; it's in the prophetic language. That's what made it all the more significant and shocking, as Paul discusses it. It was known that there was homosexuality (often open) among the pagan gentiles, so why would that be so surprising, and something they would be said to have "degraded" into? It's the people "SHOWN" God, through His Law (which should have pointed them to Christ, but they totally rejected Him), to whom the practice was strictly forbidden, then falling into it themselves, as they continue to preach the Law to others, that was so odious.
That's the way our sinful nature works. We become obsessed with something like that (and possibly struggling with it oneself), and use the Law to "isolate" and "split" it off from ourselves, and preach against it in others.
All men have sinned, but Paul is here addressing one subset of these men; the ones God specifically CHOSE to reveal Himself to, in the first phase of His plan of salvation. The ultimate goal, to, through Christ, NOT COUNT men's sins against them (2 Cor. 5:19). But the people didn't want this; they wanted to prove themselves worthy of God's special favor through their works. So Paul shows that their works were just as evil as all other "men", even as they judged them with the Law.
Romans said they ONCE KNEW God. The "fallen" state that leads people to reject or "not know" God and sin was always in the person. This isn't "ONCE" knowing God. That's what evangelism was supposed to be for; you're giving the testimony of who the real God is. Just like Paul did in Acts 17 (Mars Hill). He didn't say they really knew God but were pretending not to believe so they could sin without "responsibility" (which is what all these modern claims boil down to. It actually says those times of ignorance God "winked" at). He then explains to them who the real God is.
It's a big double standard that the same "commonly accepted message" that uses this passage to say you can come to conclusive knowledge of God from "creation" then turns around and says the physical creation is corrupted and can't be looked at to determine God's character, that is, when its amorality and violence are pointed out. It just leads to the assertions of Calvinistic election and reprobation. God "blinds" people with this ambiguous evidence, but then condemns them for it. It's not "good news" and thus not the Gospel.
The argument against this is that creation is corrupted, but "not so corrupted that it affords anyone the excuse of not knowing God. --NOT in an intimate and saving way, but rather the instinctive knowledge of the power, intelligence, wisdom, design, purpose and wonders of creation." Example given is that militant atheists like Dawkins speak of "complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"; so that he and others like him, know "better than anyone else there is a God". but "suppress this truth". (They can appeal to Acts 17:27-8, where the Athenians have the "evidence" of God, yet still he never accuses them of this deliberate "suppression" like he says of the people in Rom.1. They were just "ignorant" (agnoia "lack of knowledge"), and Paul then has to put it together for them).
But "instinctive knowledge of power", versus "intimate and saving way" is not what the passage says, but was construed to justify Calvinism, with its theological agenda: the teaching that damnation is just as much apart of God's active will, if not moreso, because of what they call His "glory". All based on Romans passages applied to every sinner who ever lived. Life is then deliberately SET UP so that most men end up lost, and this guy sits there with a big ol' smile on his face, practically gloating about it, and no one sees any problem with this!
Likewise, "General" vs "Special" revelation are not scriptural terms either, but coined to explain their interpretation of passages like this. What "divine nature" can be "clearly" perceived from "nature" or even "conscience"? It's a world of survival where the strong have power. People I used to "witness" to would throw that back (contrary to Sproul's insistence they are "silenced"; see below), and we're left changing it up in a 180° about-face and saying "oh, but it's fallen; DON'T look at what's seen".
Then, they mention the other form of "general revelation": "conscience". But if even conscience is "corrupted" by sin (which they will correctly argue at other times), then how is that a "clear" guide to God? Even Christians have done things that are morally offensive, and appealed to "clear consciences", and even scriptures (like, again, the people we're conquering are cursed, and God is telling us to take their land and enslave them like He told the Israelites with the Canaanites; the southern school that defended forms of segregation up to year 2000, etc.) Anybody can claim anything with "conscience". It can be "weak" and thus too restrictive, and then people like that go around judging other Christians and claiming their consciences must be "seared" for not being as strict as theirs.
I'm not saying there is no conscience, or any kind of evidence from nature, but those things are so shaky, and not enough to give the same level of knowledge or "accountability" as what we see in Romans. But to them, God is just giving a partial knowledge that doesn't save, in order to "leave them without excuse", and some more complete revelation then is what's really needed, which is only given to some. That is not the "Good News". Everyone is claiming this full knowledge, and basically, one could just as well conclude they're all deceived, and then everyone is lost. That's the BAD news of sin, that the Good News was sent to resolve.
The only thing that fits without all of these theological rationalizations is that Paul is referring to Israelites who were directly "shown" God ("special revelation"), and yet became darkened and turned from this truth. It's a stretch to say that is talking about every sinner who ever lived.
All of this stuff about "general vs special" revelation, "instinctive vs intimate/saving" knowledge, election, reprobation, etc. is man's attempt to explain everything from a viewpoint where the Law and condemnation are extended indefinitely, in order to try to keep it "relevant" as far as using it to change people's behavior and maintain order in society (which was not the Gospel's purpose). But it turns Christ's promise of the fulfillment coming in His original audiences' lifetimes (Matt.16) into a falsehood.
"No excuse" means that whatever they were "shown" WAS enough for them to be saved. That was Paul's whole point. (And salvation is by faith, not works). Don't forget "once KNEW" (ginosko). That's not "instinctual knowledge of the wonders of creation". ginosko actually is a more "intimate" sense!
Again, just looking at the "power" in the universe does not point to the MORAL issues Christianity is arguing. These people in Romans weren't modern "atheists" who say everything came from nothing. All back then believed there was some sort of higher power[s] that created everything (as Paul acknowledges). So that was not the issue. Obviously, just believing in a higher power in itself is not salvific. But then what is the point of "showing" them generic "power", but using that to give them "no excuse" for not believing in Him specifically and intimately (which would in practice include following His commands), which this argument now admits are not implicit in "general revelation"? That is classic "gaslighting", and a righteous God is not a gaslighter; it's only the mind of sinful man (bent on controlling others through fear and confusion) that would come up with something like that and force it into the scriptures that teach God's plan is Grace, not trapping people in condemnation.
"God is not a man that He should lie". (Num. 23:19) But then, it's not a lie if God does it (for His "higher purpose"), according to these belief systems. Now, every word in scripture loses its meaning when argued this way (and to repeat, the real author of Calvinism, Augustine even said God deliberately made scripture obscure. How convenient, for leaders bent on control!)
This whole "presuppositional" argument is a total travesty! "You know what I'm saying is true, no matter what you see/hear/think, etc.!". (The same thing used by conquerors in the name of Christianity). You should just believe anyone with an impressive argument (and some sort of authority behind it such as "historical" or political) you have not yet learned how to refute yet, then! And it's what gets into gaslighting, because you can accuse anyone of anything by attributing it to the subconscious, and you can't disprove it.
All physical nature suggests, (through its "order") is a higher intelligence. Nothing suggests it's a specific God, who is "The Father of Jesus Christ", the inspirer of the Bible, or a God of "love" and "grace". There is so much in literal nature that seems to go against some of that. It's a violent place where all creatures must struggle to survive. (And even inanimate objects are destroyed and reshaped by larger objects or forces).
So then they'll say "oh, but it's fallen because of sin". But now you've added a qualifier that is NOT evident from nature itself. Order may be evidence of a "designer", but the fact that this order often pulls matter and energy into forms not conducive to our material survival does not prove that it should be another way.
The next argument might be that the "power" of the universe is to lead them to "call out to God" [e.g. "whoever You are", etc.], and then He will reveal the "intimate", particular knowledge of Himself. This is when the evangelical position will split between "free will" and "election" being the determinant of "whomsoever will". Anyone who claims they called out, but still didn't find Him, will be accused of not really calling out, but secretly wanting to hold onto their sin too much to do so. (Which gets into the argument of the next leader we shall look at, below).
So the behavior change (i.e. not holding on to the sin) is the pivotal issue in salvation, even though the official position of both camps is that it isn't! And this still doesn't explain why so many of those who did claim to find Him still differ so much in so many areas. They'll then claim those other issues aren't really that important, for God to set the record straight; only "belief in Christ" is. But in a moment of disputing each other, which often gets as far as accusing each other's doctrines or practices of "compromising" the Gospel, they are then made into fundamental issues!
From here, they'll probably try to say the fact that humans want love and peace proves that's the way the universe "should" be, so it must be "fallen"; and now we're just piling on more and more layers of extrabiblical supposition and moving further and further away from any "clear revelation" we're claiming Romans teaches. All of this also makes man the center of the universe, which, ironically, Reformed and other conservative religion often preaches against.
And then, the fact that Sproul is Reformed, and believes God "shows" all the sinners", yet "blinds" or "hardens" (ch.9 argument, also referring to Israel), yet still "holds them responsible" to condemn them, comes from this warped Augustinian-Calvinist view, that God is just as "glorified" by damnation as Grace.
Their modern followers also ignore Calvin's "evanescent grace" clause that God gives "reprobates" a false faith that He then "takes away", so they can end up lost as well. So how do teachers like this even 'know' they are saved? You end up having to manually WORK (keep the commandments, etc), to "prove thyself elect", and PERSEVERE in it till death, in order to be saved. By now, you're teaching straight up de-facto works-salvation every bit as much as the Catholics and "cults", etc., and as much as Calvinists preach against that! Sproul obviously was "SURE" he's one of the "elect" to be teaching this so glibly, but to be brutally honest in that system, no one can know for sure that they are not one of these divinely misled "reprobates". You won't know until you have lived your whole life and "persevered" in the faith until death (or not). But then, it's too late. Yet, the argument goes, God is still perfectly "just" to do this. After all, "He allowed Adam to sin", as they argue. People really need to take a good look at this and square it away with a "good news" of "grace"!
They also at this point usually play the "owe" card; that opposing this teaching is due to thinking God owes man salvation, and is thus "judging" God. That's typical Calvinist jargon to cover up the fact that their belief system is no Good News in any stretch of the imagination. You're putting the cart before the horse (typical "presupposition" of this teaching; God said it; no chance of men skewing it, so it's "judging God" as "evil"!) This "set up" is NOT clearly revealed through scripture as they argue, but rather filtered through centuries of Church dogma that's colored by its agenda of control through fear. The "historic Church" has been wrong before, evidenced by the fact that there is so much dissension on this doctrine (such as election vs free will) and so many others.
It's not about "OWING", if God SAID it is not in His character to lie (to be pulling tricks on people for the purpose of justifying damning them like this). Rather, it is a lie straight from the Devil (the accuser)! The "evil" being "judged" here is not God; it's MEN, who've misunderstood Paul (as Peter even warned) to teach something that is NOT "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." (Luke 2:10), but rather another tool of control by confusion and fear. (Which should figure, as men are "sinful", after all! Why is it so hard to believe that they could have twisted these passages?)
There's absolutely no sense that none of this is "good news" in any possible sense. It's by all accounts the bona fide definition of "gaslighting". But they'll say it's OK, because He's doing it, and He's righteous. (Scripture on the other hand describes Him by the evil things He doesn't do, such as lie). It creates the "us vs them" sentiment the Church is known for, because "look; everyone else is evil and has a conspiracy to oppose us, because they know we're right, and they hate God". It leads them to tell LGBT people that their preference is just some game of "lust". It led them to say conquered peoples had forsaken the rights to their land and freedom because of their pagan tribal worship. Extend all of this to today, it's why we have stuff like QAnon.
It's all just another fear tactic of control.
Then, you also have:
And I said, "Well you know, as Calvin said, first of all to stop the mouths of the obstreperous." [i.e. noisy and difficult to control] When we give a defense, an intellectual defense of the truth claims of Christianity, that puts restraints on the unbeliever and the militant atheists in their arguments.
As we see, it really all comes back to Calvin (and ultimately, Augustine).
What is he even saying? What "atheists" have been "noisy and difficult to control", yet are "silenced" by their arguments (on "general revelation" and science, yet)? Most have turned away and ignored their arguments, because of all the shoddy tautologies (which they call "presupposition", but don't seem to be aware that that's bad argumentation that is only used to cover up lack of a real foundation).
So they think they've "silenced" everyone, yet don't realize how foolish they have looked, but of course plug it into the great "conspiracy" of the willful enemies.
For one thing, he's alluding to Rom. 3:19, which like ch.1 and 2 is talking about "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to THEM WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God", and of course like the other chapters, reassigning it to refer to modern "atheists". ("All the world" meant to include the "chosen ones" with the rest of the world. Nobody questioned the rest of the world's sin like in the modern dispute, as we are accustomed!)
So he's basically sitting there with this smug look on his face aiming to imprecate all the "non-elect", whom the teaching ultimately believes God raised so they (the elect) can enjoy watching them roast, because that's what most "glorifies" Him! (Which should be easy to believe when you look at this expression on his and others' faces when teaching it; though they would probably deny it when stated directly!) This, to repeat, is NOT the "GOOD News" in any stretch of the imagination! Jesus says to sentiments like this: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:55)!
The Gospel is about God starting with Israel and then turning to the Gentiles, so Paul runs a whole theme of "The Jew and the Greek". But the start of chapter 2 (and the cited verse in chapter 3 as well) shows who he was talking to regarding God "showing" Himself to people who then held that truth in unrighteousness and faced judgment for it. It was people PREACHING to others the same Law they were breaking; not just any "sinner" in the world. Chapter 9 then explains this, with the whole "vessels of wrath/mercy" analogy; that Israel was raised to show mercy to the Gentiles, and not to "save" them based on their physical heritage (or works). Making both chapters about "all who sin and go to Hell on the whole globe for all times" is what's created this fear-based non-"good news" message (of a God who has rigged it all to condemn most people, for some 'higher' purpose) that has made people ashamed and only want to hide or soften it down (as conservatives complain, but of course attribute to the great conspiracy against "the truth").
And besides, if you take chapter 1 as a universal "general revelation", belief is no longer faith; it's a "DUTY" based on "sight", and as a duty, it's no longer about Grace (as the evangelical Protestants claim), but rather our efforts to "get right". The entire Gospel is then about a tug of war between God and Satan as to whether man will go with Satan and "fun", or God and moral order. (Yet people supposedly "with" God, still fall into sin. To repeat Romans 1 is actually referring not to "atheists" (or homosexuals either), but rather to "devout" religious people who had forms of special revelation, and actually preached against violations of God's Law they committed themselves, so they're not condemned for lack of "faith" on that part; their lack of faith is in trusting their warped works instead of Christ). God has scripted it so that He "wins", but only the select "small flock" of the elect, while the vast majority have been ceded over to Satan. (But then God really only "wins" in the sense that He "sovereignly" determined this divide, according to a higher "secret counsel"!)
Naturally, the notion of deliberateness ties directly into the whole "ability" issue at the center of the Calvinist debate.
Moderate Baptistic Calvinists (which include the Lordshippers and others) like to ironically link "hyper-Calvinism" with its diametric opposite Arminianism; insisting both "make the same error that 'responsibility' only comes with 'ability'". They believe that God is "sovereign" in "ordaining man's sin" (that is, placing man in the situation where he couldn't avoid being a "sinner") yet "holds them responsible" (i.e. treats them as if they could have not been sinners, but "willfully chose" to. A position that is sheer "entrapment" any way you look at it, and which would only make sense in Origen's belief in all souls preexisting their birth, along with Christ). This is to justify the apparent scenario that God "unjustly" sent people to Hell.
So this inbetween form of Calvinism, in essence "splits" the problem off onto everyone else (starting with this "Hussey" person mentioned below); those on both opposite sides of their position. (By denying this "responsibility" on the part of the "reprobates", "Hyper-Calvinists" simply admit that God assigns people as "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" due strictly to His own "decree" and not their actual sin, which is only the world "merely acting out its beliefs" as Horton, who might fall into this camp, puts it. (p70. Hence him telling evangelicals to essentially lay off the "sinners" of the world, in Beyond Culture Wars). But these other Calvinists still end up falling back onto that same argument (i.e. they're "vessels of wrath" by "decree") when pressed with why it is done this way; so what difference does it make whether the reprobate is termed "responsible" for his fate or not; when he's roasting forever? It's all just semantics!)
This duplicity allows variants such as Lordshippism to speak the language of "free will", in addition to being among the most legalistic and perfectionistic belief systems out there (again, ever so ironic for a form of Calvinism, whose whole premise is "grace"!)
So this paper https://www.academia.edu/38800156/THE_HISTORICAL_CONTEXT_OF_HYPER_CALVINISM gives us the main source of this view, Jonathan Edwards.
On The Freedom of the Will, Edwards argued for a distinction between the natural ability of man and the moral ability of man. It was precisely this distinction that hyper-Calvinists had failed to make, though they cannot be blamed for this without falling into the historical fallacy of anachronism. It was a distinction no Calvinist had made prior to Edwards because the question had not been posed prior to Hussey in a way that required the distinction. Edwards argued that there is a difference in what a person is naturally able to do and what he is morally able to do. Every person, Edwards, argued, is naturally able to keep the whole law of God. That is, there is nothing about our physical makeup that demands that we must sin. If there were, then in our original state of perfection sin was inevitable and we were not truly in the image of God from the start. However, after the fall, Edwards argued, no one in and of himself is morally able to keep the law of God or do anything spiritually good. This limitation on the will is self-imposed because it stems from our desire to have things our way rather than God's way. Its source is human pride. People are incapable of saving themselves because they have no desire to be saved. No person lacks the physical ability to repent. What he or she lacks is the desire to repent. Therefore, all, Edwards reasoned, are under obligation to repent, and so it is the duty of the gospel minister to call upon all to repent. It is up to God, then, to use that call effectually by his Spirit to call to repentance his elect through the preaching of the gospel. Only by this means can the heart in self-imposed bondage to sin be set free to embrace life in Christ. Edwards's work served as the impetus for a renewal of evangelical Calvinism in North American and England.
An "evangelical renewal" based strictly on fear, and not love, and hence all the other evils in those societies, that weren't even recognized as evil; only very limited views of "morality", and the societies would eventually rebel against the hypocrisy (starting with the preachers who "softened down" the Edwards and Spurgeon model of preaching (centered on Hell), which many old-liners blame for the rest of the changes).
But here we have this leader coin, define and rationalize these new categories: "natural" vs "moral", and without any scripture. It's all off the top of one's head, to make it all fit pre-supposed Augustinian/Calvinist interpretations of scripture.
This "natural" category would mean our "ability" to not steal, kill, lie, commit adultery, blaspheme, etc. and that every time we do those things, we could have not done them.
It's this "moral" category that is about the "desire" to stop doing these things. That's what we can't do. (And in evangelicalism, Calvinist and Arminian alike, "conversion" or "repentance" is ultimately about changing the "desire", even if you don't completely stop those things).
So God is holding people "responsible" based on a mere categorical term. Either way, people are not keeping the Law. They're not "able", but this is not because of their "nature", but because of their "desire", in which they simply don't want to, which stems from-- their "sin [what?]"; their sin nature! (Unless we're going to deny a "sin nature" now, but that's apart of "historic orthodoxy", so they can't possibly be doing that!) So we're right back to a complete "inability" to keep the Law with one single "natural" cause! We've just gone around in a rhetorical circle!
This right here should show the complete folly of this doctrine, when coupled with the almost universal view, of the "power of God" changing us. If that were understood right, and the "desire" is the sole thing derailing our "ability", then wouldn't the problem be completely fixed (for the convert), and we would experience the full "ability"? No, they'll tell us (in one way or another), for God didn't want to make it too easy; He wants us to "struggle" growing "into the image of Christ" so He leaves the "sinful nature" in place, and we have to use our newly enabled "will" to resist it every day. Many, of course, can still fail (and if they fail too much, to the Calvinist and "eternal security" Arminian, they were likely never elect to begin with).
So we're just left with another group of people (like the rest of the world) who have a "natural" ability they don't live up to, because of a "moral ability" that doesn't change them completely; it just gives them a motivation to struggle with the natural ability. They're "saved" for their effort (and profession of Christ), as enabled by God. Even Spurgeon says that the lost in Hell, will see "Ye knew your duty, but ye did it not" (https://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0478.php). Note that! It's a confession that salvation is all about "duty". This is not a "gospel" of "GRACE", which is "not of works"!
Continuing:
You will not be able to say, "My damnation lies at God's door," for you will see in Christ a suitable Savior. "...but I would not come unto him that I might have life." Even your moans and groans as ye suffer shall be but an utterance of this awful truth--"Great God, thou art just, nay, thou art doubly just; just, first, in damning me for sin, just, next, in trampling me under foot, because I trampled under foot the blood of the Son of God and counted his covenant an unholy thing." Your weepings and wailings shall be but the deep bass of the awful praise which the whole universe, willingly or unwillingly, must give to him who has provided a perfect Savior, and made him perfect through suffering.Then, in reaction to this, we get "Oh, my brethren, what delight and transport will seize the minds of those who are redeemed! How will God be glorified then!"
This is what they are calling "good news". This is part of what Sproul seems to find amusing! Keep in mind, again, these people are forced to acknowledge that they "would not", as if by their "free will", come unto Him. Notice, at this particular moment, the whole "inability" and "election" part of it is completely skipped over! The so called "moral ability", where it was their desire to sin that kept them from coming, is not even mentioned here! God is treating them as if they had NO "INABILITY", of ANY kind, at all!
When they're reflecting over their fate --and glorifying God for it, will there be a question to themselves of "What should I have done?" Well, obviously, accept Christ; and they "loved their sin too much". But then, what were they supposed to do about that? (the so-called "moral" inability?) You can frame it as the proverbial question "Where did I go wrong?" Well, first, in sinning (to begin with), and then not repenting and receiving Christ, which were necessitated by sinning. The latter because of loving the sin, and it's "the effectual call" (i.e. unconditional election) that changes us from loving the sin; and thus enabling us to receive Christ. Notice, the "natural" ability (what we are "held responsible" for!) does not figure here. The [lack of] "moral ability" doesn't figure when they are being judged, and yet the "natural ability" they are judged for doesn't figure in what they actually 'should have' done; i.e. to overcome the moral inability! This is why this "judgment" scenario just doesn't add up! We're entering a catch-22 centered around the "moral" inability, and its only cure, of unconditional election. There is "nothing you can do" (as tracts put it) to make yourself elect; i.e. to [effectively] save yourself.
And you sinned because you were born a sinner. Only "Pelagianism" (the arch-heresy of the Calvinist view), or other totally liberal or unbiblical views believe that people were not born as sinners, but "become" such by falling into it at some point in their lives; and the ability to repent is purely "natural".
So your real "wrong" occurred with being born into that state! Wrong to exist as God "decreed" you to be, then! (And typical of the Baptistic form of Calvinism, Spurgeon is cited as rejecting "unconditional reprobation"; i.e. "double-predestination" (see https://reasonabletheology.org/ch-spurgeon-unconditional-election), and thus favoring what they call "single-predestinationism". But then what is having someone born into a sinful state that you don't plan to save, then? This is when they'll point to His "secret/higher counsel", but then that's just another admission of unconditional reprobation! Especially when you use Rom.9 to justify it! There's just no escaping it, no matter how much semantic somersaults they perform!)
God creates you, and you're born a "sinner", and He's "offended" by this and "holds you responsible" for it; so how could you have not done that? So the sinner in Hell can't say "My damnation lies at God's door"; it was purely his own "choice", but then he could not have chosen otherwise (we're talking about the so-called "moral" inability now, not the "natural" inability to avoid individual sins!) Will he ponder on all of this; or does God simply blot the idea out of his mind, and program him to see that this was "right"? (And yet not save him then, even though he's now meeting that "requirement" of salvation: of "believing the truth/Christ" and even "worshipping God" --Sort of like an extension of "unconditional election"; i.e. "un-blinding" of him and everyone else in Hell; yet too late to save them). Again, this is apparently amusing to some who believe in it!
We've now lost any sense of coherency, or any real meaning of words and terms, and this is where the Calvinist always falls back on "it's above your comprehension". That's the final word; Baptistic and "hyper" Calvinist alike (showing that any real difference between them is superficial at best). And you're supposed to just listen to them, and not expect it to fit any kind of "logic" or "reason".
In Origen's view, the initial sin occurred in some preexistent state (of all souls) before the foundation of the "world" (universe), and Jesus Christ was the only one who remained faithful to God, and thus became the sinless Savior. Of course, most modern "orthodox" Christians will reject that as essentially denying the unique deity of Christ. But it would be the only way to explain why the sinner in Hell could then say "Well I made that choice way back then, and now I have to live with it for eternity". (It should be of note that Origen is still considered part of "historic orthodox Christianity", despite his odd view. Here's a paper suggesting a connection between Origen and Augustine, who is the real source of Calvinism https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276194005_Origen_in_Augustine_A_Paradoxical_Reception. He was likely influenced by the "Alexandrian school" of Origen; particularly in regards to what "in Adam" means).
Now on the other hand, for the "redeemed", since "moral" is defined as "desire", then this can be the loophole which excuses all sorts of the most grievous sins, because we didn't "desire" to do them, we just "slipped" into them (or "got into the flesh" as charismatics will put it). This is likely the slope many leaders have taken, when they end up on the news from sexual or financial "scandals"! ("Holiness" preachers can then claim they weren't really saved, but that won't undo whatever they've done, and won't recognize the common teaching that leads to it, even behind strict "moral" language!)
Rather than some secret joint plot between the Arminians and "hyper"-Calvinists, the position on "responsibility" and "ability" stems from the meaning of the words, which is completely lost in this hybrid Calvinist view.
Their view of God's judgment is pure "entrapment" and "gaslighting", and their tactics of promulgating this doctrine on the world and even the Church is gaslighting. It is not "GOOD news"; especially when you take into account that God could have deceived anyone into thinking they were "elect".
(And Edwards, like so any others also failed to realize that "trampled under foot the blood of the Son of God and counted his covenant an unholy thing" is not describing just any "unbelief" of just any "sinner" (most nonbelievers not even thinking in terms of something being "holy" or not); what is omitted from the text (Heb.10:29) is "whereby they were sanctified". So now, you have non-elect sinners in Hell, who had at some point once been "sanctified" (hagiazo; separated from profane things and dedicated/consecrated to God)! This changes everything, if one is honest. Even with Calvin's evanescent grace ("false faith") hypothesis; they could still not properly be acknowledged as "sanctified", then, in the spiritual, "born again Christian" sense. To cut to the chase, this, like Romans 1, is referring to the previous "people of God"; the Israelites, who had been "chosen" to be "set apart", and "once knew" God, but rejected Christ who was sent to them; and many initially receiving Him, but rejecting Him later on, as we see in places like John 8).
Lack of "moral ability" doesn't figure when reprobates are being judged, and the "natural ability" they ARE judged on doesn't figure in what they 'should have' done, given the lack of 'moral' ability! This is why the teaching doesn't add up! Yet this whole thing seems to be amusing to some!
In reality, what makes us "not want to" keep the Law is our survival instinct, which presses us to gain food and comfort, and to reproduce (sexual desire) at any cost. (The energy of the universe pushes matter to be constantly changing.
Living beings need the matter they depend on such as what makes up their bodies, shelter, etc. to stay the same, to sustain the processes of the living state, and thus "survive". This makes the universe what we call "violent", and life "difficult", as we are essentially going against nature in trying to maintain these temporary forms as they are tugged on by forces such as gravity and oxidation which cause decay). These tend to override any desire to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us", which is Christ's own definition of what the Law was about (and many commandments of it added because of sin, until He came).
That is our dilemma! It began with "the Fall", which resulted from man taking upon himself the "knowledge of good and evil". God then held him up to his newfound knowledge, under his natural instincts, which then reigned over his whole earthly existence. (Hence, "Do this and live", or "sin and die": Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Lev. 18:5, Ezekiel 18:5-9, 20:11, 13, Luke 10:28). He then sent Christ to offer forgiveness of our guilt and shame. It was not simply about fixing our behavior!
The Calvinist scheme is not "good news" in any stretch of the imagination; it is not "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." (Luke 2:10); it's just a huge trap [supposedly] set by God, justified with a whole charade called "sin", to exercise his "sovereignty" through "damnation" (Calvinist statements often state this clearly), and "grace" is just making an exception ("salvation") for a relative few. Arminianism is the same thing modified to put a supposed "free will" back into it, because unescapable reprobation seemed too harsh. Or they thought unconditional election would hamper evangelism. Something like all of this could have only come through the mind of fallen men, with a desire to control others through fear and undecipherable confusion! And the "responsibility" concept is also something purely man's attempt to justify what is clearly not good news!
The key "proof texts" for this doctrine are primarily Gen.6:5 and 8:21, showing the "evil" that stemmed from the Fall, and if you look at it, the "evil" (bad) behaviors displayed there are basically a reversion to pure instinct (survival), much like the animals. Jer.17:9 is also frequently used, and in total isolation: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" This too is not talking about this necessary "deliberateness". The previous verses say "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm" (5) and "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." (7) "Wicked" there (anas) has more of the meaning of "weak, sick, frail", and an emphasis on "incurable". So the human heart is simply being contrasted to God as what we should trust in.
A passage I have mentioned a lot is Romans 7, where Paul shows that the Law only makes the fallen human nature even more rebellious! This teaching focuses a lot on man's "rebellion", and yet tries to control it through preaching of the Law, which Paul is showing here is totally futile! This, and ch.8:7 ("the carnal mind is enmity against God"), is talking about the limitation of us in our nature to please God, not any necessary "deliberate intention". (So it doesn't even say anything about "want"; it says the nature can't be subject to the Law (v7-8), and not "they can't because they don't want to" either! If they don't want to, it's because they can't, and there are many who do want to, but find they still can't hence, the "struggle"!) The same with Gal.5:17 "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other". Being in "the flesh" is a reversion to raw instinct, where the only "law" is "survival". This is what fights against the divine Law. It is not "deliberate"; it is almost the opposite, being totally visceral!
Of course, individual sins can be deliberate, but we're talking about the entire state of being a "sinner", which is attributed to the "sin nature", with the individual "sins" springing forth from the nature.
It's shame that is the biggest result of the Fall (as shown in the actual text in Genesis), and this is only stoked by preaching more Law, and THAT is why the "nature" only "rebels" against it (and why both Israel and the Church's use of the Law to try to control by fear only made the "rebellion" worse! Remember, the purpose of the Law was to show that we would only rebel against it and thus not be able to keep it, and would instead need forgiveness through Christ!) But this natural reaction to this only became the teaching's own self-fulfillment!
Adam and Eve were the ones who "fell", and we don't see any "hatred" toward God, or any other "deliberate" acts of "rebellion". What we see is them trying to hide, and this (by their own admission in the text) was from shame, not deliberate animosity. (Again, when deliberateness is made the sin, then shame becomes the solution rather than the problem; along with control through fear). With Cain, we now see the beginning of big intentional sin, but in both cases (Adam and Eve's shame, and Cain's rage), what we see is that man had reverted to raw instinct. (Hiding one's nakedness, where the creature is vulnerable to perceived outside threats. Since the problem for man was spiritual, and not [yet] physical, like it is solely, for animals, this is why it became "shame").
THIS is what then leads to all these negative reactions to God and His Word, from the [true] "offense of the Cross (to man's self righteousness where he tries to hide behind his own self-justification), to the "offense" of sinners having their sins thrown in their face, via the Law. The issue is whether the solution is just more Law (and willfully garnering these reactions and chalking them up to their "sin", and yet getting nowhere), or is grace, and grace alone.
Summary: Augustinian-based "historic Christianity" in-practice position:
1) God got mad at man for disobeying a command in the garden and then retaliated
2) Man at the same time "fell" into "sin", which was about deliberate intentions
3) A tug of war ensues between God and Satan, with Satan trying to keep man against God using [mostly] pleasure as the lure, and God issuing the Law to try to fix man by making him deny pleasure. This keeps the tug of war going, as the nation initially 'chosen' and given the Law keeps falling back into sin, and the rest of humanity are of course, still 'lost'.
4) God tries a new approach, of sending Christ to usher in a new age where more people are reached, and "faith" replaces rites such as circumcision and sacrifice for sin, and what's retained of the rest of the Law is modified to focus on the "moral" commands (often stepped up in strictness), in order to continue to fix man, remove the deliberateness (intention) of sin from his 'nature' (though he'll still sin sometimes), and maintain order in society, and now this is made the "evidence" of "true faith", and "election" (whether unconditional or by "free will").
God calls out new "chosen" groups to lead this (through an institution called "Christianity", and no longer restricted to Israel. It's supposedly not based on physical nation at all, but to some did include this to some degree), and preach a 'choice' of conversion or judgment to the world (and to some, includes executing temporal judgment on groups of people for their "sins" through colonization, slavery and other means) and fight to maintain control over society (which has been diminishing because of man's numerous deliberate conspiracies against God and His people).
5) God keeps this "sanctification" process "hard" (including removing special revelation, and making both "general" and even scriptural revelation unclear or ambiguous, to "challenge men's minds", causing mass confusion), for this is 'good' for man since he's still in practice a 'sinner' who deserves pain and difficulty, and thus needs it to 'grow'; and the resulting "narrow path" of "hardship" in "faith" (including fighting sin, whose strong pull is not removed from us, though in time it may get weaker) aids in weeding out the elect from the "reprobates" (which remain most of humanity)
6) A relative very few get saved, but according to one group, this is all God wanted to save, as He "didn't have to save any", and these are enough to praise Him, and (to some) watch Him roast everyone else for eternity, which is part of what He is to be "glorified" for. (This is the "good news" some seem almost gleeful over!) The other group believes that's too mean, but the situation is motivation for us to try to convince the lost to make that "decision" to change course in the afterlife, and "give God" back what He's due; i.e. "their life".
The further assumptions of the commonly accepted message:
Sin is about deliberate animosity toward God
Therefore:
The wages of sin is pain (even "death" is redefined as "pain")
God gives us "help" to fix our behavior*, but it's unfelt and thus difficult
*(leaving "no excuse" for anyone)
Satan lures us with "pleasure", while God remains the "accuser" with the Law
Therefore:
"Broad"="easy" and "Narrow"="hard"
The True Gospel
1) Man took the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which instilled in him a sense of shame and the need for covering
2) God held man up to his new knowledge, and added the Law and its punitive and atonement system to address man's problem.
3) Man as a whole could not keep this Law, but only became self-righteous about it, while his sin was still present.
4) God sent His Son to keep the Law and die to represent the propitiation of the requirement of the Law and gain the pardon man needed and then removed the Law system
The basis of the Church's additions:
5 The postapostolic Church didn't realize what the end of the "world" (age) was, and assumed it was the physical world. They then began teaching this was being "delayed".
6 In the meantime, the Church had to continue to adapt to this world (persecution from without, and dissension from within), and so began shaping itself into a powerful institution. The offices mentioned in scripture become a hierarchy ("bishops" > "pastors", etc.) It then impressed the emperor, who then ceased persecution and instead made it the official religion of the empire, granting it immense power.
7 The Church eventually assumed it would bring in this new "Kingdom"
8 A fear basis then shaped its teachings
9 The Church amassed much power in the Western world, but began fracturing as it was totally corrupt. This has led to hundreds of institutions representing "the Church", but often in conflict.
10 Many try to hold on to power, creating a virtual 'war' with the 'secular' world, particularly over 'morality'.
Appendix: The Role of Instincts
Addressing the subject of "Man Deserving Pain" (Man Deserving Pain and Where this Notion Comes From) also naturally brought to mind the role of our instincts, which supposedly are what get us into trouble (with God, and with life in general) in the first place. Also, politics, where the tensions, especially racial, are based on instinct. Everyone can point out the bad behavior of others, but both sides are acting purely on instinct, including the various defense mechanisms involved.
Man is driven by instincts for survival and reproduction. This isn't from the Fall, it is from God telling man "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen.1:28). Since every single man who ever existed wasn't there as a differentiated soul to hear and then obey this command (and likewise, animals), then it is something that is played out in our natural instincts to survive and reproduce.
These, unchecked can create havoc and disrupt the order needed for human society (and thus, ironically, ultimately, our survival and reproduction).
The Fall introduced shame (not the instincts themselves as assumed).
The shame then made us obsess and/or oppress the instincts.
This only made the problems "burst out" more, later.
The divine Law shows us the areas where unbridled instinct becomes evil.
This was to show us that we could not successfully suppress the instincts and be "holy" by our own efforts
The Law then would end up being largely manipulated by our instincts into a vehicle of self-righteousness and controlling others while not eliminating sin or justifying us.
The instincts keep driving, even when satiated. This is why they seemingly can never be satisfied. The pull of the instinctual nature is like we see a nice looking object, that draws us down a path past money or some other object, which we see and then pick up. It turns out that the object is really an image from a projector we're carrying on our heads, for the purpose of finding the money.
Thing is, even after we've retrieved the money (or even perhaps, determined we don't need it), we are still drawn by the image. It has become an end in itself. (A somewhat similar, more familiar analogy is a carrot on a stick that's really attached to us).
But even this, in itself, is not necessarily the "Fallen" aspect of the situation.
The survival instinct covers our aversion to pain and desire for comfort.
This too has been interpreted as part of the "fallen" nature (aka the "flesh"). The "new nature" according to or at least implied by common "spiritual" teaching welcomes pain, because we "deserve" it because of our "sin"; it's a substitute for worse pain we are spared from, and it's "good" to make us "grow".
[So the part of us that dislikes pain is the very part of us that warranted it in this view].
The survival instincts, driving our desire for comfort, in turn drive our systems of "give and take" (or "trade"), to determine who is due the limited resources of convenience. (And this leads to the in-practice "ice age" mentality in modern western capitalism; --as it is, always defended by conservative Christians!) We are geared to think we have "earned" everything good, and that others haven't.
This is what becomes corrupted into power mongering and avarice, in addition to [spiritually] "self-righteousness".
We worry about looking bad to others, because if others are displeased, then we won't get stuff (whether favors, friendship, respect, etc.) from them. So then, we justify everything we do, even if patently evil. Or we worry and get anxious about what others think.
Racism is the survival instinct gone overboard, where you are concerned about the survival of the group, even beyond your own life (e.g. worrying about the overtaking of the race decades from now, when you won't even be here, or a "return of Christ" would have occurred sooner, rendering that event impossible).
(Racism is still not ingrained upon the Church as being against scripture. You have more "progressive" types now saying it is, but it is not seen by the more conservative as against "the core of the Gospel", or a threat to "historic Christianity" like they see acceptance of homosexuality, where hundreds of leaders come together, --on the 500th anniversary of Luther's theses and the start of the Reformation, to issue a united statement on that one issue. They probably premised the gays and the secular society that has accepted them as the new "hierarchy" that's "oppressing" them with their deliberate "agenda", just the way the Church of Rome persecuted the Reformers. They've said the same things about liberal politics and religion, evolutionism and education, where they treat the secular "world" as if it's a part of the Church that has "fallen away" and now their job to fix, which is what's been reflected in much of their preaching).
The Church, aiming to follow the divine Law (which they in some other areas say was abrogated by Christ), has gotten things backwards. Consensual behavior is to be opposed by them, but things that affect others [re. Matthew 7:12] such as racism, meanness, or even sexually, like some of Trump's behavior, are forgivable).
"Race realists" and other extremists (including religious ones) claim all the "facts" support their ideology. Others are essentially "wrong" just for being, and of course, any defense of theirs is an attack against the "truth" (and perhaps even attributed to the "fallen human nature" or some other moral defect).
Other grave evils were conveniently justified by survival under other names. The Church's historic persecutions of "heresy" (and this, both the Catholics, as well as the Protestants, when they had gained their own power bases) were justified by "we're really protecting life"; by "saving" souls that could have been damned by error. (This shows the way any action can be justified in the name of maintaining "righteousness"! Yet the negative outcomes of this are just blamed on others).
But the universal instinct is to survive, and if your ideology is [ultimately] not conducive to this, the people have every right to survive, whether you deem their defenses "right" or "wrong" or not. God's initial command of "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen.1:28) is where the survival instinct comes from, and is not rescinded by the Fall. So you show yourself a danger to life, rightly resisted by others, (and you can condemn this resistance all you want, but you can't stop it, at least not completely), and will have to justify it in a way that admits diminishing others' humanity and right to life.
Once you do that; deny people's rights to their own survival instincts (based on stuff like "we're bringing the TRUTH!", "You're 'fallen' and offensive to God", or denigrating instinctual drives altogether), then it's only one step from trying to exterminate the people! We see here why there is such an alarm, and comparison to Nazism and fascism.
The insensitivity of past culture (such as race; being widely decried now in pop culture, but then defended by claims of "oversensitivity") forever puts the lie to the common conservative notion of past society being "godly" until the 1960's. It was a selective 'godliness' framed around a bunch of mostly sexual [see James 2:11] hangups, that often went way beyond even scriptural standards.
The only thing that changed in the 60's was a partial loss of power of one group, and stressed is partial; they were still dominant (never totally stripped of power, or "persecuted", like many claim now).
It started and the strife perpetuated, when those with power TAKE from others, then set up a false premise where they've already "given" [i.e. their fair share] ("we've made your lives better"), or the victims have already taken ("you're lazy/sinners, and so are in debt now"), and so equity/equilibrium is actually maintained. From there on, they heavily preach principles of give and take, and guard against anyone "taking" from them, as if it was always universally wrong.
They put down instinct so that people resisting their control don't have a right to do so. "The truth" is that they're to be subjected, and it's due to their own shortcomings, never any wrong on the part of the subjugators.
Sexual desire is a combination of two instincts: a hormonal arousal, and a desire for intimacy (stemming from the fact that parts of us are kept private by instinct, due to the physically vulnerable position of both coitus and waste elimination. So we share these parts only with those we decide to be 'intimate' with).
The hormonal disposition is usually toward the opposite gender.
But for some, it's for the same gender. When this occurs, the other instinctual desire, of intimacy, is still present, but now directed toward that same sex.
(This has nothing to do [necessarily] with any sexual wantonness or "jaded"-ness, as commonly assumed).
1 Cor.6:9 is used, not only to question the conversion of people seen still "practicing sin", but on the flipside to justify people or even societies for whom certain behaviors are questioned (usually by "outsiders"), but not seen as important by the ones using the verse, or even if the behavior is condemned in others, it is excused as a temporary "slipup" in the person or group deemed "converted". Hence, whatever they do, they are not "sinners"; i.e. not CHARGED as sinners, despite their actual behavior and affect on others (which is the GRACE I contest has really spread to all now).
So they will deny the concept of "survival instinct", seeing it as completely opposed to the "biblical" concept of "sin", but they reinterpret this as a "deliberate" intention to "rebel against God", which has been removed from converts. So nothing people seen as "true" converts (or, collectively, the societies they create) do can be judged.
So they won't see, for instance, the comparison of black and white crimes (and liberal and conservative political "agendas") in terms of both sides (and thus, ALL of man) as a great point for the doctrine of sin. Instead, "the other side" will be viewed as the "deliberate" sinners, while "our side" is at worst "imperfect" (which they criticize when they see others as using it as a substitute for "sin"), and at best, justified.
Both the stereotypical "black crime" and white dominance (colonialism, predatory capitalism, etc.) are the SAME survival instinct carried to "sinful" extents (i.e. does not treat fellow man as they would want to be treated). The difference is the scale (size of the affect), and one generally justifies itself by the other group doing it first, while the first group justified it either by a direct "might makes right" (e.g. pagan Romans, Teutons, etc.), or claiming God "chose" them. (Which one is more understandable?)
The true motivation for good: "the Golden Rule", not fear
The simple statement of Matt.7:12 (and reiterated in Rom.13:10 and James 2:8) is the answer to all of these "moral" issues, and whether what people or human systems (business, govt, religion) are doing or have done in their private or public lives are right or not. Just ask "how would I feel if this was being done to me?" I can remember being told to "man up" by Christian conservatives, when mentioning the problems I faced caused by predatory capitalism (which they excuse, while blaming all financial problems on social programs or people's own "laziness"). Yet these same people would now condemn me for not being against the LGBT community. Looking at the lives of some of the people, I realized that whatever they are doing together, has no bearing on me. It doesn't dissolve my marriage, it can't spread any disease to me, and I'm not doing anything outside my marriage to catch anything anyway; they're not forcing me to do anything I don't want to, etc. The reason they are not to be condemned, is because their behavior does not violate this principle. They are not doing unto me as they would not want done to them. So they are not failing to "fulfil" the Law on that point, even if the previous written out (i.e. "letter") expression of the Law did forbid the practice. But to conservatives, I'm supposed to be up in arms about their relationships that have nothing to do with me, while accepting social or economic practices that do affect me negatively (and which the people committing them would not want done to them, as we see whenever they begin complaining about being taxed or regulated by others!)
But the people preaching God the most, have instead insisted that that's too lenient; we need hard preaching on the Law, sin and judgment (i.e. FEAR)!
The utter evil and wickedness of this approach can be seen in the fact that Calvin said that conversion due to "mercenary affections" (trying to get something from God-- a pardon from Hell, rather than coming to Him out of love for Him) would not save! (And I had one person say something like this to me once, as well, early in my faith when I was struggling with believing!)
Anyone who has ever received Christ after being warned of Hell or told the benefits of Heaven can fit into this category! Who then can be saved, really?
They loudly necessitate this fear method of scaring people into being saved, but if they came in because of being scared/fear, they're not saved! What is a person supposed to do, then? Nothing! If they're "really" elect, then they won't react in fear, but "love"; but if not, God still holds them "responsible" anyway!
It should be clear this teaching is of pure evil, straight from "the enemy" (the spiritual one, that is)! It is not looking at Jesus, and seeing that "he who has seen [Him] has seen the Father" (John 14:9), and that Jesus is never shown setting traps like this for anybody; not even His enemies, so it must not be the way God operates! (It's basically a "god" that instead behaves and thinks just like the conquering "Christian" civilization that used it as their mascot, rather than like Jesus! They'll claim it's them reflecting the character of God, but it overall doesn't match Jesus, who claimed to be the express image of the Father). It is the basis of "Marcionism"; an ancient heresy that held that "the god of the Old Testament" was this mean, angry figure, and Jesus was the kind, "loving" one. It ignores the different parts of the divine Plan involving different people, and melds everything together into this sort of "good cop/bad cop" setup where you better make nice with the good one now, or else, you'll fall to the wrath of the bad one. (And the "bad" one has set it up that you cannot even make good, unless he's specially favored you!)
How can any of this be called A gospel, let alone the Gospel? (The "good news" once again is a message of salvation, not damnation, or even some combination of both. Once you add "Christ saves, but..." it ceases to be the good news).
This theology has created a no-win situation, that has probably driven many mad! (And no one thinks of this when praising the "revivals" that followed Spurgeon and Edward's preaching, after people "clenched their seats" in fear! Or any other "old time" style preaching that used fear! All that mattered was that the fear motivated them to better behavior, good "works", and more religious "fervency", such as increased church attendance, and don't forget, obedience to the leaders, and voilà; there, you have a good "revival"! Yet according to Calvin, the people were not saved; but it sure was beneficial in having people under control!)
What fear does is motivate works --in the name of "righteousness" (DO this, or ELSE). Precisely, better works has been the ideal goal of those favoring the old preaching. But works-righteousness doesn't save, now, does it? And even modern Lordshippers and other similarly influenced teachers will then claim works and even "fervency" aren't enough!So Calvin was right! Yet he and his followers continued to push this impossible contradiction on the world anyway. (Must be part of the "difficulty" man "deserves" as the punishment for sin!)
I always shuddered at the term "The Golden Rule", as it was associated with extreme liberals (such as the Unitarian-Universalists), who were basically not Christian, and didn't even claim to believe in scriptural authority. In fact, that was often their whole counter charge to the moralistic "biblicism" of conservatives: "I believe in 'the Golden Rule'". From there, it didn't even sound like it was biblical. It sounded just like the "human sense of human goodness" conservatives would attack (and even ironically counter-accuse them of "works-righteousness" as opposed to "grace"!)
So I was actually surprised when I first saw that Jesus had in fact uttered the principle (though worded differently in the KJV and other common translations). And I at the time (myself leaning toward "lawkeeping" back then) didn't pay attention to His adding that this SUMMED UP ("fulfilled") the Law. (Lawkeepers turn it around by saying the way to "do unto others" is by keeping the point by point 'commandments', but this misses the point that the point-by-point system is easily skewed by our self-righteousness and tendency to find loopholes. This is how the "historic Church" and individual leaders were able to sanction all sorts of evils and think they were still "following God's Laws", just as the corrupt Israelites of Bible times had done).
I then learn that Jesus actually borrowed it from the earlier Jewish teacher Hillel.
But if one holds Jesus to be the Word of God in Person, and He affirmed this previous teacher's saying as truth, then it's safe to say that this is what God is saying (even if He did once command the whole Law to those people). Just because the Liberals co-opted it, does not mean Jesus "un-said" it! Instead, their taking it means they had a better handle on the Gospel than the conservatives, and that speaks against you (conservatives), not them!
The other common charge against the liberals, and even moderate "modern" evangelicals is "no longer preaching on man's sin and Hell". But this actually keys right into the dismissal of what Jesus said fulfills the Law. If I want to excuse NOT doing unto others as I would have them do unto me; how could I do that? Why, override it with the concept of "sin", infuse "deliberateness" into it, and from there define it as "deserving" PAIN. That way, now, I can do whatever I want to you, and point out, you've sinned against God, and the wages of sin is death, and thus anything less than death as well, such as all forms of pain. This will often be accompanied by "all they REALLY need is salvation"; not anything in this world (remediation of pain; and can even include food, shelter, peace, freedom, not being brutalized, etc. We even see this "what man really needs" idea in their battles against "secular humanism"; e.g. the need for tough preaching or "counseling" on their "sin", rather than "therapy").
Directly connected to this is the "anti-victimization" rhetoric among the most conservative. Again, this implies (that if I wanted to, such as in meanspirited preaching; or excusing what my forefathers did), we can do whatever we want to you, and it's OK, because you're not really a victim; you're a sinner; i.e the culprit, and God is the only legitimately offended party, --and us as well, who hold His values. Not only that, but if you react in any way other than submission and "thankfulness", you're fighting against God Himself!
THIS is how "Christian" civilizations could go around the world colonizing and enslaving, which often included rape and murder, and still believe themselves to be doing God's will (John 16:2), and have modern defenders claim they were "godly Christians" whose "values" we are to be condemned for turning from.
This started to become obvious when I had conservative Christians, not too long ago, tell me (somewhere in their rebuffing of "the race card") that Africans and Native Americans "forfeited their land and freedoms" because of their "demonic tribal worship". So what this is claiming is that God has judged them by "the letter" (the first two commandments of the Law), and this gave license to the Christians (who were supposed to be bringing them the Gospel, not punishing them for their lack of prior knowledge of God)* to flat out violate the very principle that Jesus said fulfilled the Law. (In addition to the direct 6th and 8th commandments of that Law).
*this is what goes right along with their interpretation of Rom.1:25
The way people (especially in this tough-talking "alpha" culture) will even try to override the Golden Rule is to say bad treatment is what they would want, for the 'greater' good; usually in the form of "I wish I had someone to push me...", or "When you're in Hell, you'll wish you were still getting hard preaching instead". So if the harsh preaching saves the person from Hell, then they actually were "doing unto another as they would want done to them". (Of course they usually don't think this way when someone they think is wrong criticizes them! And it ignores any wrong they may be doing in their preaching to others).
What I've seen sums up the problem of the Church (particularly the conservative Church) is the belief that since they are "elect" and "regenerated", then their nature has been "changed", so whatever they do is right and shaped by God, even if it looks bad to the rest of the world, who are the "unregenerate", and do not understand the things of God. So if they appear "mean spirited, narrow-minded, fanatics" etc., and even "bigots", it's God's means of spreading the "truth", which (even quoting the scriptures) is "foolishness to those who are perishing", and "the offense of the Cross"; and that the "sinners" need toughness to save their souls (and this worked in the old revivals), so it's much better than the Hell they really deserve.
More moderate Christians don't seem to have ever answered this, so the people really think it is God's "truth"! I think it is something we really need to start addressing theologically/scripturally rather than just repeating terms like "meanspirited".
Liberals' response to all of this was to reject the sinfulness of man, which now becomes the main objection (anti-liberal talking point, and deflection) of the conservatives. But that doctrine wasn't the actual problem. It should be clear to liberals and non Christians that no one has kept the Golden Rule at all times, and inasmuch as that's the fulfillment of the Law, and we've all broken it, we are by definition "sinners".
The problem with the conservative preaching of the doctrine is using it to control others (through fear, and under a premise of "maintaining moral order"), while taking themselves out of the equation. They "went down to the altar" at some point, and many were "brought up in the faith" to begin with (but still 'made it official' along the way through their own personal "conversion"; and older Calvinists such as the Puritans even had a doctrine called "covenant theology" which taught that election was essentially hereditary --and in stark contrast to the entire book of Romans and the rest of Paul's teaching. Let alone "election" extending to material wealth in this world; hence dominating over others)!
This point can be seen here:
https://www.newcalvinist.com/
"The Reformed faith teaches that the moral law of God has three uses. The first is to convict of sin and drive the repentant sinner to the Lord Jesus Christ. The second use of the law is to restrain lawlessness in society. The third use is to function as the rule of life for the believer. One of the most famous statements of this truth comes from the Puritan Samuel Bolton in The True Bounds of Christian Freedom: 'The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.'[http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?747]
The Puritan way of thinking and conduct is diametrically opposed to the ways of New Calvinism."
And herein lies the common assumptions, of "restraining lawlessness in society" (didn't work when the Puritans decided they could steal [lands, bodies/freedom, etc.] and kill, and all the other evils of the colonial days; it showed the law could be spun and manipulated to justify anything, just as the Israelites of Christ's day had done; they just justified other sins than the ones they condemn modern society and Christians for), and the admission that the Law is the "end"; the ultimate goal that even the "gospel" is pointing to. In fact, the Law ends up as the start and finish! (They have completely voided everything Paul took such pains to teach. The Galatians were right all along! Of course, all of this will only work with an "unconditional election" that presumably makes the Law possible for certain people!)
And even if the believers do "slip up" and fall into a sin at times, they at least don't "practice" it (do it regularly and intentionally). So they're basically or practically NOT sinners anymore (under the definition of deliberate "rebels"), and thus heirs to all the good things God promised (this life and the next), while the rest of the world still deserves "pain", up to enslavement or even extermination! Which many believed they were called by God to execute, in one way or another.
So at the same time, they have also not distinguished between the literal and "positional" definitions of "sinner". That we are "sinners" in a literal sense, but not [necessarily] sinners in a "positional" sense. (Even though the official doctrine for most makes this distinction, but only for those who have officially "converted". They won't allow grace to extend this beyond this strict group, and so keep judging the world by the Law. But the removal of the Law system that century is what would finally complete God's wrath: Rev.15:1 cf. Matt.16:27-8, 23:36-9). But what that means, is that the literal "sin" does still affect others (and thus violates "doing unto others as we want done to us"), and thus, people have the right to react to this, without us complaining of being "persecuted" or falsely "accused", with them as the "wrongdoers".
Conclusion:
We should just realize that we are all driven by instincts, and try to keep them in check, rather than denying our own (i.e. ours are already kept in check via religious, cultural and/or genetic "superiority"), while only others are captive to them (and thus need to be brought under our control, or scared into submission through religious teaching).
© 2020-2 ETB