Calvinist Robots

[&Abel]

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (The subject here is the rulers, not the children)

thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, (It was the rulers; the pharisees that Jesus was addressing here and not the children)


how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, (Jesus was not discussing gathering the Pharisees under his wings. He was talking about gathering their children so that they could be ministered to by Christ)


and ye would not! (who would not? The Children? No. This is not a verse discussing salvation and choice, it is a verse discussing the condemnation of those who would deny access to Christ to their children by evil rulers)
(Mat 23:37)

The next verse tells what happens to those who would refuse to allow "thy children" to be gathered under the wings of Christ:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
(Mat 23:38)

Jesus didn't give these guys a choice about their future, did he? He sealed their future right then and there. Jerusalem was going to be destroyed.

Christ will gather HIS children together under his wings. He has been doing it for 2000 years. He doesn't need the permission of the those children to do it. He will do it because it is his will to do it.

stop twisting the scripture please

 

[Rick Otto]

The 'freedom' to sin is more of a weakness than a freedom.
In the salvific sense, autonomy simply means self-saved.

 

[Rick Otto]

stop twisting the scripture please

He isn't. You must be crossing your eyes.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

stop twisting the scripture please

Just read Matthew chapter 23 in context. Jesus was in the process of condeming the Pharisees. He was not discussing salvation. He was prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and giving the Pharisees a piece of his mind.

And don't accuse me of "twisting scriptures" again. I don't take kindly to being accused of blasphemy.

 

[&Abel]

no hes talking of Jerusalem as a whole

you ARE twisting scripture

hes not addressing the pharisees as Jerusalem

 

[Thekla]

Simply shows depravity

Since Adam and Eve 'fell' (despite living in the presence of God), is this "utter depravity" part of the "image of God" in man ?

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

you ARE twisting scripture

I would appreciate it if you would no longer post a response to anything I say.

 

[&Abel]

I would appreciate it if you would no longer post a response to anything I say.

unfortunately that is one choice god has not given you

 

[Rick Otto]

Since Adam and Eve 'fell' (despite living in the presence of God), is this "utter depravity" part of the "image of God" in man ?

No, it's what happened to the image & likeness.
Images & likenesses can be defaced, God cannot.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Johnny Dalmas

I would appreciate it if you would no longer post a response to anything I say.
​

unfortunately that is one choice god has not given you

It's one He's giving you.

 

[Thekla]

No, it's what happened to the image & likeness.
Images & likenesses can be defaced, God cannot.

But the image of God, if Adam and Eve were 'predestined', must then include utter depravity for them to fall.

 

[Rick Otto]

But the image of God, if Adam and Eve were 'predestined', must then include utter depravity for them to fall.

The way they were designed to exist as creatures is not the same as their destiny - what they do with that existance.

 

[Thekla]

The way they were designed to exist as creatures is not the same as their destiny.

can you explain ?
If the image is "lost" because of the fall, the utter depravity (ability to sin) must exist prior to the fall. Since Adam was created "in the image of God", the depravity must reside in "the image".

 

[&Abel]

and the will of god

basically god is responsible for sin with that mentality

 

[Thekla]

And, because we are created in His image, sin must be part of the image (because we do not have the freedom to not sin) which makes God the origin of sin, meaning sin is inherent in God.

 

[Rick Otto]

Utter depravity isn't the ability to sin, it is the inescapable motivation to sin.

 

[Rick Otto]

and the will of god

basically god is responsible for sin with that mentality

He IS responsible for it, but He isn't guilty of it.

 

[Thekla]

Utter depravity isn't the ability to sin, it is the inescapable motivation to sin.

So Adam and Eve, though predestined to sin, had the ability to not sin ?
This still leaves sin as part of the content of the image of God in man.

 

[Thekla]

He IS responsible for it, but He isn't guilty of it.

If God is responsible for sin, how is sin not an attribute of God ?

 

[Rick Otto]

And, because we are created in His image, sin must be part of the image (because we do not have the freedom to not sin) which makes God the origin of sin, meaning sin is inherent in God.

That doesn't necessarily follow.
The way Adam was composed as a creature is not the same topic as his destiny as that creature; intimately related, but different.