God's forknowledge and predistinaiton

[Billy Evmur]

Those statements don’t indicate that we didn’t have free will, you’re basically saying that it’s God’s fault that we were sinners. Because according to Calvin we can’t refrain from sin unless God enables us to. Furthermore he teaches that we have no choice but to sin. Free will is the very reason why we are held responsible for our sins because we have a choice, we have the ability to refrain from sin. Everyone has made decisions not to sin even before coming to Christ. Nobody lies with every word coming out of their mouth, nobody steals everything they come into contact with, nobody attacks every person they come into contact with. This is because we’re constantly making decisions everyday whether to sin or not regardless of whether or not we’re saved. Even after we come to Christ that hasn’t changed. The only difference now that we’re saved is we have the word of God and the Holy Spirit urging us not to sin and our love for God that makes us want to be obedient and do the things that please Him Calvin’s theology is comparable to a parent punishing a newborn baby for pooping their diaper when the parent knew it would do that before it was born and it has no other alternative but to poop in it’s diaper. God is not ridiculous, He is just and loving.

Adam had freewill, we did not, we were born in Adam's image, we have his sinful nature. Nobody has ever lived [bar One] who has not sinned. Therefore all must die, and all will die unless Jesus comes again first.

All the freewill in the world will not stop you from dying.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Adam had freewill, we did not, we were born in Adam's image, we have his sinful nature. Nobody has ever lived [bar One] who has not sinned. Therefore all must die, and all will die unless Jesus comes again first.

All the freewill in the world will not stop you from dying.

The Bible never says that Adam didn’t have a sinful nature just like us. You’re assuming Adam had free will and we don’t buy the Bible never actually says anything to that effect. If Adam didn’t have a sinful nature just like the rest of us he wouldn’t have sinned in the first place.

 

[Aaron112]

If Adam didn’t have a sinful nature just like the rest of us he wouldn’t have sinned in the first place.

I daresay plainly that there was nothing about Adam that was even similar let alone just like the rest of us! He was healthier, smarter, stronger, without any bad habits, without any idols nor idolatry, without any politics, without any religion, without any of the multitude of bad and even evil things that inundate us in this world today - and causing so much pre-disposition to sin and to sinfulness today (all our lives, for generations ) ....

 

[Aaron112]

God's election is sure, and nothing can change it.

What men think is God's election, and what men think of themselves and of others, is always subject to change , and is almost always opposed to all that God Himself Says in His Word.

 

[biblelesson]

What men think is God's election, and what men think of themselves and of others, is always subject to change , and is almost always opposed to all that God Himself Says in His Word.

True, but It really doesn’t matter what men think. That does not change God’s truth. God’s election is sure, and cannot change, therefore let God be true, but every man a lier, Romans 3:3-4 KJV.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I daresay plainly that there was nothing about Adam that was even similar let alone just like the rest of us! He was healthier, smarter, stronger, without any bad habits, without any idols nor idolatry, without any politics, without any religion, without any of the multitude of bad and even evil things that inundate us in this world today - and causing so much pre-disposition to sin and to sinfulness today (all our lives, for generations ) ....

Oh we had nothing in common? Did he sin? I mean that is the topic of the discussion not whether or not he had any computer skills, a Facebook or bank account, driver’s license or high speed internet. Obviously he was a sinner so hopefully you can be honest enough to admit that he did have that in common.

 

[Aaron112]

Not to start with, no. Until he sinned, he was without sin and without any guilt and mankind was not yet cursed with sinfulness or death.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not to start with, no. Until he sinned, he was without sin and without any guilt and mankind was not yet cursed with sinfulness or death.

Newborn babies are born without sin.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not to start with, no. Until he sinned, he was without sin and without any guilt and mankind was not yet cursed with sinfulness or death.

God didn’t curse man with sinfulness. That’s not anywhere in the Bible. A newborn baby hasn’t sinned until he sins, does that mean it doesn’t have a sinful nature because it hasn’t sinned yet? How could Adam sin if he didn’t have a sinful nature? That’s a contradiction in terms. He had one single commandment and he couldn’t even keep that one commandment. The scriptures don’t say anywhere that Adam didn’t have a sinful nature before the fall.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Except as you may or may not agree
if a man thinks he is saved, and he is not, and he does not even try to repent because he thinks he is already okay with God, and he is not. So if men think something is okay, even "the right way to go", yet it is the way of death/destruction,
then to them, and to those who are deceived by them,
it matters.

Not according to Calvinism because nobody has any control over their salvation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"tradition"
Yet if you believe tradition, this tradition,
then why do you think Adam was not without sin before he sinned ?
Not to argue about it, there's really nothing to benefit here....

Being without sin and having a sinful nature are two different things. Everyone is born with a sinful nature but they’re not actually a sinner until they commit a sin. Having a sinful nature just means that you’re prone to sin it doesn’t mean that you’ve already committed a sin.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Adam was likely definitely not prone to sin - he might not have sinned at all if not tempted to !
To say he had a sinful nature before he sinned seems entirely wrong. (and likely is provable from the Hebrew Scripture. ) English is not so good.....

How could he sin if he didn’t have a sinful nature? Your first statement is contradictory to itself. “Adam was likely definitely not prone to sin”? You have the word “likely” which is an indefinite statement immediately followed by “definitely” which is a definite statement. It’s like saying Adam was probably definitely not prone to sin. Probably meaning most likely but possibly prone to sin then definitely meaning absolutely impossible that he was prone to sin. And again there’s no scriptural evidence to support this theory. The fact is Adam did sin, so you can’t say he didn’t have a sinful nature if he did in fact sin. You’re just pulling that out of nowhere. It’s not supported by the scriptures and it is contradictory to the facts that are presented in the scriptures. If he didn’t have a sinful nature he wouldn’t have sinned. When God created Adam He created him with the ability to sin. Adam didn’t acquire this ability after his creation, the ability was always there just like every single person who came after him.

 

[Aaron112]

How could he sin if he didn’t have a sinful nature?

Easy.
He did not have a sinful nature to start with. Neither did Chavah (Eve).

Then , when tempted, they sinned.

Now mankind starts with each man after Adam, except the Messiah Savior King Jesus, having a sinful nature.

 

[Aaron112]

I've become aware that some religions have stipulations/ clauses/ conditions that
fall apart when it is realized that Adam and Chavah when created did not have a sinful nature.
Instead of accepting the truth about this, adherents to those anti-Scripture religions instead defend the indefensible idea that Adam had a sinful nature to start with.
This is basically insoluble on this forum, as long as religious ideas contrary to Scripture are allowed to go on and on and on without stop.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I've become aware that some religions have stipulations/ clauses/ conditions that
fall apart when it is realized that Adam and Chavah when created did not have a sinful nature.

This is coming from nothing more than your imagination.

This is basically insoluble on this forum, as long as religious ideas contrary to Scripture are allowed to go on and on and on without stop.

By all means please quote exactly what scripture says that Adam & Eve didn’t have a sinful nature before the fall. Such a passage DOESN’T EXIST. So either stop with the false accusations or quote the scriptures that I’m contradicting. If you can’t provide such a scripture then stop with the false accusations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Easy.
He did not have a sinful nature to start with. Neither did Chavah (Eve).

And what passage of scripture did you arrive at this conclusion from? There is no passage that makes such a statement. Like I said before this is coming from nothing more than your imagination. You could always quote the scriptures to prove me wrong, but you won’t because you can’t. Adam & Eve had one commandment and they couldn’t even refrain from keeping that one simple commandment. Adam & Eve were just as capable of sin as the rest of us. My position on this is nothing new, it’s been taught throughout the apostolic churches going all the way back to AT LEAST 170AD

1. Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedienceand the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God's command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness. Wherefore he has also had a twofold experience, possessing knowledge of both kinds, that with discipline he may make choice of the better things. But how, if he had no knowledge of the contrary, could he have had instruction in that which is good? For there is thus a surer and an undoubted comprehension of matters submitted to us than the mere surmise arising from an opinion regarding them. For just as the tongue receives experience of sweet and bitter by means of tasting, and the eye discriminates between black and white by means of vision, and the ear recognises the distinctions of sounds by hearing; so also does the mind, receiving through the experience of both the knowledgeof what is good, become more tenacious of its preservation, by acting in obedience to God: in the first place, casting away, by means of repentance, disobedience, as being something disagreeable and nauseous; and afterwards coming to understand what it really is, that it is contrary to goodness and sweetness, so that the mind may never even attempt to taste disobedience to God. But if any one do shun the knowledge of both these kinds of things, and the twofold perception of knowledge, he unawares divests himself of the character of a human being.



2. How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that you, at the outset, should hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the gloryof God. For you did not make God, but God you. If, then, you are God's workmanship, await the hand of your Maker which creates everything in due time; in due time as far as you are concerned, whose creation is being carried out. Offer to Him your heart in a soft and tractable state, and preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned you, having moisture in yourself, lest, by becoming hardened, you lose the impressions of His fingers. But by preserving the framework you shall ascend to that which is perfect, for the moist clay which is in you is hidden [there] by the workmanship of God. His hand fashioned your substance; He will cover you over [too] within and without with pure gold and silver, and He will adorn you to such a degree, that even the King Himself shall have pleasure in your beauty. But if you, being obstinately hardened, reject the operation of His skill, and show yourself ungrateful towards Him, because you were created a [mere] man, by becoming thus ungrateful to God, you have at once lost both His workmanship and life. For creation is an attribute of the goodness of God but to be created is that of human nature. If then, you shall deliver up to Him what is yours, that is, faith towards Him and subjection, you shall receive His handiwork, and shall be a perfect work of God.



3. If, however, you will not believe in Him, and will flee from His hands, the causeof imperfection shall be in you who did not obey, but not in Him who called [you]. For He commissioned [messengers] to call people to the marriage, but they who did not obey Him deprived themselves of the royal supper. Matthew 22:3, etc. The skill of God, therefore, is not defective, for He has power of the stones to raise up children to Abraham; Matthew 3:9but the man who does not obtain it is the causeto himself of his own imperfection. Nor, [in like manner], does the light fail because of those who have blinded themselves; but while it remains the same as ever, those who are [thus] blinded are involved in darkness through their own fault. The light does never enslave any one by necessity; nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon any one unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves.



4. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all goodthings with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. For those persons who shun rest shall justly incur punishment, and those who avoid the light shall justly dwell in darkness. For as in the case of this temporal light, those who shun it do deliver themselves over to darkness, so that they do themselves become the cause to themselves that they are destitute of light, and do inhabit darkness; and, as I have already observed, the light is not the cause of such an [unhappy] condition of existence to them; so those who fly from the eternal light of God, which contains in itself all goodthings, are themselves the cause to themselves of their inhabiting eternaldarkness, destitute of all good things, having become to themselves the causeof [their consignment to] an abode of that nature.

St Iranaeus 170AD Adversus Haereses Book 4 Chapter 39

 

[BNR32FAN]

Concerning this system there are two things to be emphasized. First, since the day when Adam opened the door for evil to enter God's creation, the world order has shown itself to be hostile to God.

Are you capable of at least admitting that there is no scripture to support the idea that Adam & Eve didn’t have a sinful nature?

 

[BNR32FAN]

"My second objection to Absolutism is that it teaches that the sin of Adam was the result of God’s irresistible will. Before he transgressed, Adam did not have a sinful nature to motivate and control him. So we come back to the question: if, as our Absoluter friend tell us, every sin happens, because God removes his restraining power, and man simply acts out his own sinful impulses, what about the sin of Adam? If I might repeat myself, when the Absoluter explains how it is that God can foretell every little detail about every sin that will ever be committed—without being the cause of the sin—he will tell you that God simply leaves the sinner to his own nature, and his own devices, and the nature of the sinner works its way in exactly the way God predestinated that it would. There can be no doubt that God often gives people over to work their own destruction, but to use that explanation to show that God, somehow, predestinated every sin is simply a dodge. For one thing, the explanation breaks down, when you apply it to the sin of Adam. There can be no question that God knew beforehand what Adam would do. He provided the Lord Jesus Christ as the remedy for sin, before that first sin was committed. But until he sinned, Adam did not have a sinful, corrupt nature to motivate and control him. When it comes to the original sin of Adam, the Absoluter has no choice—if he is going to save his pagan philosophy —and that is to trace the sin of Adam to God himself."

I hope this isn’t in reference to me because it’s not even close to what I believe or teach.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You first made the false claim that they had a sinful nature before they sinned.
Thus, nothing more is needed.
I did not know why anyone would make that false claim,
until I discovered what was posted a short time ago - that false claim is needed to support other false doctrine.

So I’ll take that as a no then. You can’t even admit the truth. No such passage exists in the entire Bible and you absolutely won’t admit that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Let me say again that Absolutism is the result of bund-dling the pagan philosophy of fatalism with the Bible doctrines of the power, and wisdom, and purpose of God—to the great scandal of those doctrines. By doing that it removes the stigma of being blind and random from the notion of an irresistible, unchangeable fate. And it explains God’s ability to know the future in a way the carnal mind can comprehend. In other words, God is able to tell what is going to happen from the first to the last moment of time, because that is the way he is going to orchestrate and manipulate all things and make them happen. In order to do that, he finds it necessary to argue that Adam sinned, because God irresistibly willed for him to sin. But Bible truth does not need pagan philosophy to prop it up, and any time you call on pagan philosophy to explain God and his work, you will find yourself explaining God in a way that is much more compatible to the pagan way of thinking than it is to the description he gives of himself in the Bible. That will become abundantly apparent as we look further at this Absoluter’s arguments."

https://primitivebaptist.net/Articles/Harold-Hunt/writings-by-elder-harold-hunt.pdf

Is that all you have? Just start telling lies about your opponent when you lose an argument? It’s not my fault that your theology isn’t supported by the scriptures so why make false accusations against me? All I’ve been asking for is a passage of scripture to support your idea that Adam & Eve didn’t have a sinful nature before the fall and you can’t produce one. Instead you keep saying that my theology contradicts the scriptures but you can’t even provide a single verse that I’m contradicting. You keep doing this over and over. “You will know them by their fruits”.

Luckily for me I’m well known on this forum and everyone already knows that I don’t teach anything you’re saying here.