I will take time tomorrow to address the other questions that have been asked of me these last couple of days.
Upvote
0
U/C Unconditional election vs. Conditional election
- Thread starter Blackhawk
- Start date
- Status
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Okay, just so I've got this right, God's portion of the "salvation process" was a work and your portion of the salvation process is not a work? Does that about sum it up?
Agreed. Not sure how this is a parallel to a person's salvation unless of course you can show where the Bible says that salvation was "offered" to you. Otherwise, I don't see the corellation.
I gotta admit, this was pretty funny. Okay, okay. Calm down. Did the answer I gave you suffice? Did it shed any light on that Christian perspective. It's okay. You can call us reformed thinkers Christians. It isn't always necessary to group people within the recognized Protestant Christian sphere. For example, I don't go around calling all non-Calvinist Protestant Christians "you Arminianists."
I agree. I have never said anything contrary to this.
Let me get this straight. You think that every time you sin it's because satan and his minions are tempting you? You won't concede that it's that very weakness and <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">susceptibility</SPAN> of your flesh to submit to the inherent sinfulness that lived in you long enough for you to form "autopilot" responses to just about everything in your life?
I would have to say that there is a big difference between our new nature that God has given us and the fallen nature that we often still respond according to.
Didn't I just say this in post #318?
You keep pointing out things we agree on. I never said it was a Christian's nature to sin. What I said was that God, in His sovereignty, could have decided, instead of imputing you with the righteousness of His Son, to inculcate you with that righteousness so that you would never sin. Why didn't He do this? The reason is very simple. You are going to learn what godly character is as it is developed in you due to the resistance you face from your "old man," your old nature. Regardless of the words you use, dead, gone, obliterated, passed away, the point is, you still occasionally respond to things according to your old nature. You can call this old nature your flesh if it makes more sense to you. However, that is the old nature you had as an unsaved person, that of feeding the selfish desires of your flesh. You can believe that to mean your epidermis if you'd like. But, the desires of your flesh include alot more than a long sleeve shirt. They include the lusts of your fallen heart. They include the sinful desires of an unregenerate mind. Call it the flesh. You wouldn't be wrong, unless of course you limited that term to mean "your skin."
Which, as I said, includes a fallen heart and an unregenerate mind. In other words, our old nature. Now that we are saved we have a regenerate heart that daily (hopefully) grows in it's desire to please a new Master, God instead of ourselves, a mind that is progressively being renewed by God's Word. However, our old nature, our old habits, our will that occasionally thinks we know better than God still desires to feed that old nature that we have technically been freed from.
Tell you what, I'll respond to your verses tomorrow. Before I do, I encourage stop disregarding the fact that satan has no power over you as a saved person. His tempting of you doesn't have anything to do with your disobedience. God is not going to say, "Well, he was tempted by satan. What could he do?" He's going to convict your heart for your disobedience, not satan's. Is it sinful for you if satan tries to tempt you, or is it sinful if you respond to that temptation in a sinful way? Was Jesus a sinner because satan tried to tempt Him? You, as a Christian, are responsible for the sinfulness of your own desires and as such every single action or thought we do or have should be suspect by ourselves. So what. So satan is here for a time, trying to tempt God's children. Oftentimes we will succumb. Satan delights in our disobedience. But, believe me, we do our fair share of conceiving our own sin.
God bless.
Upvote
0
franklin
Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
Hi reformer, thanks for giving me the crash computer course!
I tried to send you a post a couple days ago and i lost it! I even tried your nifty little trick but I blew it as usual! I will practice with it some more when I have some more time. Anyway, I guess I'll ask you a question about calvinism if I may..... I realize that you and others who hold to the calvinist doctrine have certain proof texts and passages to prove your point, on that note how do you interpret Romans 9:8-16 ? I've heard other calvinists say that these passages speak of predestined individuals, on the other hand I would have to say that it appears it might be speaking of nations. What are your thoughts?
Upvote
0
Here we go, Ive got a backlog of questions to address, so I hope I dont miss any. Somehow, I know some of yall will let me know if I do.
Bur first, Ill ask Reformationuist a question. You said that f it happens, its Gods will. If it doesnt, its not.Is that right?
Well, heres the question. Do you sin? Does anyone sin? Is it Gods will that anyone sins? If it is, how do you explain the fact that God tells us not to sin on many occasions? Does he say Please do not sin, even though it is my will that you sin?
Now, on with the qestions asked me.
Mj white asked:
I say:
I think the Holy Spirit woos the conscience and thus influences the man into accepting Christ, but He doesnt force himslef on the man.
Mjwhite asked:
I say:
Yes, I do credit those righteous desires to God. He stirred my conscience, and my conscience and the Holy Spirit urged me to get right with God. Others listen to their conscience an dlive moral lives, but do not give themselves over to a relationship with The Lord. Still others ignorevthe conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
Mj white said:
I say:
My flesh still sins, but I am a saint, as is every born again Christian. Christians are never referred to as sinners in the Bible. The term sinner always refers to an unregenerated person; one who has not accepted Christ, one whose sins are not forgiven. When Paul refers to himself as the chief of sinners, he was referring to his life before Christ.
I say:
Then we are reading 2 different sources. What I read said that in cases in which there is no qualifier after the word pas, that it means every single one, without exception
He was not talking about Christians. He was talking about people of the world.
I say:
Certainly its possible. People make the wrong choice all the time. There are Satanists out there who know darned well their master will lose.
However, it is far more likely that the person who has listened to the Spirit long enough and open enough to actually have a full grasp on the Gospel,a dn to know that it is the truth, will accept Christ. But not everyone lets it get to that point. Most people dont understand everything thats at stake, and thats why many choose not to accept Christ.
I say:
I agree, except the part about the sinful nature. As you know, I dont believe that if I sin, I am succumbing to the sinful nature, since I believe the sin nature is dead. I believe that I am succumbing to the desires of the corrupt flesh (very different from the nature), which are stirred by demons temptations.
I say:
I cant answer this question without referring to something you dont believe in Free Will. So, you will not believe my answer. God has ultimate power. Sometimes he purposefully limits his power. Christ did that while he walked the earth: (1) He limited his knowledge of the future (he said he didnt know the day or the hopur of the Son of Mans return) (2)He turned off his power not to die (3) He limited his authority, as he couldve called 10,000 angels to save Him (3) He submitted himself wholely unto the Father. Thats hwo it is with free will. He could zap the right decisions into our lives, but he doesnt. He lets us choose, so that he may be glorified even more when we make the right one. And we are the ones who choose hell for ourselves, not God. It all has to do with free will, and like I said, if two people dont agree on free will, theyll never agree on this type of issue.
I say:
When did I run? If I dont answer your questions, sometimes its because I misunderstand them. And sometimes, to be honest, its because you twist my words to mean something that they were never intended to mean. An example of this is when you say that I said that those who died without hearing the Gospel would get preached to by Jesus. The way you word that makes it seem as if I said it always happens. But I never said that, not once! I said it happened once, while Christ was dead for 3 days. I never said it continues to happen. But you twist and twist and twist. All I said about people who die now without having heard the Gospel is that they have had the truth revealed to them in some way (they have the law written on their hearts, not on paper or in words), and they are judged by God according to that.
I say:
Can I show you the words free will ? Probably not. Could I show you the concept in action? You betcha. What about the many times in the Bible in which people choose something opposite of what God wants? Think that didnt happen? Think again. There are many times in the Bible that God warns someone against doing something and they do it anyway. That person exercised their free will. If it were Gods will that they do the thing they dop, why did God warn against it? Why would He tell them not to choose the very thing that is His will?
I say:
I dont quite understand what youre getting at. Are you offended by the term your side? I certainly hope not, as I didnt intend it rudely.
I say:
I think that it is a combination. Satan originates the temptation,a she originates all thoughts of sin. At the moment of decision, I may choose to walk in the Spirit (let Christ live through me), or I may drop my guard and let the "autopilot responses (nice way to describe it by the way) take control and commit the sin. However, those autopilot responses do not originate in my spirit (my nature). They are purely physical and mind-oriented. if I do resist the temptation, it is not I who resists the temptation, it is Christ who lives in me. Likewise, If I sin, it is not I who sin, but sin that lives in my members (the autpilot responses of my flesh).
Maybe were more in agreement than we think on this issue. I do not consider nature and flesh the same thing. I consider the nature that part of you that is who you are (your spirit), it drives you to serve one master or the other. In a nonChristian, the sin nature drives and urges a person to rebel against God, for it is wicked. In a Christian, the sin nature is dead, and the new nature (the Holy Spirit) drives and urges the person to follow Christ. That is where the flesh vs. the Spirit comes in, because the flesh is still corrupt. But thats just your shell; it is not who you are, it is not your nature.
I say:
When I say that Satan tempts me, I am in no way ducking responsibility for committing the sin. The Holy Spirit has given me the power to overcome the temptation, and if I dont, thats my fault, not Satans. I have never said or implied otherwise. The temptation itself is no sin; we are all tempted. Acting on the temptation is the sin.
Bur first, Ill ask Reformationuist a question. You said that f it happens, its Gods will. If it doesnt, its not.Is that right?
Well, heres the question. Do you sin? Does anyone sin? Is it Gods will that anyone sins? If it is, how do you explain the fact that God tells us not to sin on many occasions? Does he say Please do not sin, even though it is my will that you sin?
Now, on with the qestions asked me.
Mj white asked:
I say:
I think the Holy Spirit woos the conscience and thus influences the man into accepting Christ, but He doesnt force himslef on the man.
Mjwhite asked:
.
I say:
Yes, I do credit those righteous desires to God. He stirred my conscience, and my conscience and the Holy Spirit urged me to get right with God. Others listen to their conscience an dlive moral lives, but do not give themselves over to a relationship with The Lord. Still others ignorevthe conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
Mj white said:
I say:
My flesh still sins, but I am a saint, as is every born again Christian. Christians are never referred to as sinners in the Bible. The term sinner always refers to an unregenerated person; one who has not accepted Christ, one whose sins are not forgiven. When Paul refers to himself as the chief of sinners, he was referring to his life before Christ.
I say:
Then we are reading 2 different sources. What I read said that in cases in which there is no qualifier after the word pas, that it means every single one, without exception
I say:
He was not talking about Christians. He was talking about people of the world.
I say:
Certainly its possible. People make the wrong choice all the time. There are Satanists out there who know darned well their master will lose.
However, it is far more likely that the person who has listened to the Spirit long enough and open enough to actually have a full grasp on the Gospel,a dn to know that it is the truth, will accept Christ. But not everyone lets it get to that point. Most people dont understand everything thats at stake, and thats why many choose not to accept Christ.
I say:
I agree, except the part about the sinful nature. As you know, I dont believe that if I sin, I am succumbing to the sinful nature, since I believe the sin nature is dead. I believe that I am succumbing to the desires of the corrupt flesh (very different from the nature), which are stirred by demons temptations.
I say:
I cant answer this question without referring to something you dont believe in Free Will. So, you will not believe my answer. God has ultimate power. Sometimes he purposefully limits his power. Christ did that while he walked the earth: (1) He limited his knowledge of the future (he said he didnt know the day or the hopur of the Son of Mans return) (2)He turned off his power not to die (3) He limited his authority, as he couldve called 10,000 angels to save Him (3) He submitted himself wholely unto the Father. Thats hwo it is with free will. He could zap the right decisions into our lives, but he doesnt. He lets us choose, so that he may be glorified even more when we make the right one. And we are the ones who choose hell for ourselves, not God. It all has to do with free will, and like I said, if two people dont agree on free will, theyll never agree on this type of issue.
I say:
When did I run? If I dont answer your questions, sometimes its because I misunderstand them. And sometimes, to be honest, its because you twist my words to mean something that they were never intended to mean. An example of this is when you say that I said that those who died without hearing the Gospel would get preached to by Jesus. The way you word that makes it seem as if I said it always happens. But I never said that, not once! I said it happened once, while Christ was dead for 3 days. I never said it continues to happen. But you twist and twist and twist. All I said about people who die now without having heard the Gospel is that they have had the truth revealed to them in some way (they have the law written on their hearts, not on paper or in words), and they are judged by God according to that.
I say:
Can I show you the words free will ? Probably not. Could I show you the concept in action? You betcha. What about the many times in the Bible in which people choose something opposite of what God wants? Think that didnt happen? Think again. There are many times in the Bible that God warns someone against doing something and they do it anyway. That person exercised their free will. If it were Gods will that they do the thing they dop, why did God warn against it? Why would He tell them not to choose the very thing that is His will?
I say:
I dont quite understand what youre getting at. Are you offended by the term your side? I certainly hope not, as I didnt intend it rudely.
I say:
I think that it is a combination. Satan originates the temptation,a she originates all thoughts of sin. At the moment of decision, I may choose to walk in the Spirit (let Christ live through me), or I may drop my guard and let the "autopilot responses (nice way to describe it by the way) take control and commit the sin. However, those autopilot responses do not originate in my spirit (my nature). They are purely physical and mind-oriented. if I do resist the temptation, it is not I who resists the temptation, it is Christ who lives in me. Likewise, If I sin, it is not I who sin, but sin that lives in my members (the autpilot responses of my flesh).
Maybe were more in agreement than we think on this issue. I do not consider nature and flesh the same thing. I consider the nature that part of you that is who you are (your spirit), it drives you to serve one master or the other. In a nonChristian, the sin nature drives and urges a person to rebel against God, for it is wicked. In a Christian, the sin nature is dead, and the new nature (the Holy Spirit) drives and urges the person to follow Christ. That is where the flesh vs. the Spirit comes in, because the flesh is still corrupt. But thats just your shell; it is not who you are, it is not your nature.
I say:
When I say that Satan tempts me, I am in no way ducking responsibility for committing the sin. The Holy Spirit has given me the power to overcome the temptation, and if I dont, thats my fault, not Satans. I have never said or implied otherwise. The temptation itself is no sin; we are all tempted. Acting on the temptation is the sin.
Upvote
0
Dear Slavenomore,
Mj white asked:
quote:
How do you know it is NOT the Holy Spirit who helps that conscience realize there must be more to life?
I say:
I think the Holy Spirit woos the conscience and thus influences the man into accepting Christ, but He doesnt force himslef on the man.
then
Mjwhite asked:
quote:
So boiled down, you are saying you got saved because you had righteous desires the others did not have. Will you credit these righteous desires to God? I dont think so, for if you did, then you would be sayimg God saved you by giving you righteous desires He did not give others
.
I say:
Yes, I do credit those righteous desires to God. He stirred my conscience, and my conscience and the Holy Spirit urged me to get right with God. Others listen to their conscience an dlive moral lives, but do not give themselves over to a relationship with The Lord. Still others ignorevthe conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
Are you saying The Holy Spirit woos every conscience? It seems so. Otherwise, it would seem to me that you are saying he did more for you than the others, hence proving my point.
So therefore it seems to me that you are saying He stirs everyones conscience. And what then is the result according to you? You gave me yours and theirs.
YOU: When the Holy Spirit stirred your conscience you made the righteous decision to give yourself over to Jesus.
OTHERS #1: They refused to give themselves over to Jesus, but agreed to live moral lives?
OTHERS #2: They ignored the conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
I will come back to you, but first let me discuss OTHERS #1. As rebels against God, as all are until they submit unto His Lordship, how can you say these people live moral lives? Oh sure, I would agree that from the standpoint of the world, the very same world that crucified Jesus, that they are moral, BUT since they have rejected the King, how could you say they are moral from Gods point of view? And since we are His children, and not children of the world, shouldnt we be looking from His point of view and not the worlds? OTHERS #2 are called sociopaths.
Now to you and your boast. You boast that your salvation was due to your ability to make the proper response to the stirring of your conscience that OTHERS failed to do. Now assuming they had as much head knowledge of the Gospel as you [for many never hear it] what is the difference between you and them? What caused you to accept the Gospel and them not? Are you more spiritually wiser? More spiritually moral? Some combination? What?
And what caused them to refuse the Gospel and you to accept it? Are they more wicked than you? Do they love sin more? Are they spiritually dumber than you? Less spiritually moral? A combination of these? What?
Where is your boast?
Mine is in the Lord. I am saved because He has mercy on me and brought me into His kingdom by revealing the truth to me and making the cross real to me. He doesnt do it for all. He did it for me and I cant understand why He would save a sinner like me. I certainly can not earn His love. But I love Him because he first loved me and saved me. My boast is in the cross of Jesus alone. For there God demonstrated His love for me and saved me. And such a demonstration would be futile if He didnt make it real to me. It is in His revelation to me that His love for me is revealed. That is why I trust Him, becauseI know He loves me.
Mj white said:
quote:
since you are still a sinner, are you not?
I say:
My flesh still sins, but I am a saint, as is every born again Christian. Christians are never referred to as sinners in the Bible. The term sinner always refers to an unregenerated person; one who has not accepted Christ, one whose sins are not forgiven. When Paul refers to himself as the chief of sinners, he was referring to his life before Christ.
Read James 4 to see you are wrong. I do not wish to quibble over this point, but why do you make a blanket statement? Your flesh sins, but you dont, is that what you are saying? And is not every action you make still yet accountable to God? Are you going to say, that wasnt me, just my flesh? Do you still not willfully with mind and body purposefully do what you know is wrong before God?
quote:
Mj white said:
You are like every Arminian i have encounterd so far in the respect that when i start probing into the WHY of your belief, you run. Am i exposing not a solid rock foundation but empty air?
What are you hiding? Why won't you answer my questions? And why do you answer them without openness? [like answering that those who died and never heard the gospel would get preached to them by Jesus, and then later, weeks later after being called on it, you qualify your answer to the point that it never really answered the original question.]
I can't make you answer, but i wonder why you duck so much.
I say:
When did I run? If I dont answer your questions, sometimes its because I misunderstand them. And sometimes, to be honest, its because you twist my words to mean something that they were never intended to mean. An example of this is when you say that I said that those who died without hearing the Gospel would get preached to by Jesus. The way you word that makes it seem as if I said it always happens. But I never said that, not once! I said it happened once, while Christ was dead for 3 days. I never said it continues to happen. But you twist and twist and twist. All I said about people who die now without having heard the Gospel is that they have had the truth revealed to them in some way (they have the law written on their hearts, not on paper or in words), and they are judged by God according to that.
AND the point I was making in asking if you were a sinner is to show that we still deserve damnation and still only escape it due to the mercy of God because of the work of Jesus.
AND as to the Law being on their hearts, that is why I asked you about them. That is why you told me about Jesus preaching to them. You are simply going around in circles and NOT addressing my point, which is why I say you are running.
The Law, according to Romans chapters 1 through 3, is on every heart and it condemns every one of us. There is NO SALVATION by the LAW. But you said:
I say: Yes, I do credit those righteous desires to God. He stirred my conscience, and my conscience and the Holy Spirit urged me to get right with God. Others listen to their conscience an dlive moral lives, but do not give themselves over to a relationship with The Lord. Still others ignorevthe conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
Now unless they know the gospel as true, what good does it do the Holy Spirit to stir their hearts? And if they never hear the Gospel, how can the believe it? [Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God, And how can they hear if there is no preacher?] So my question to you still stands [the one you answered by saying Christ preached to the dead!]:
How can those who never hear the Gospel be saved?
By listening to their consciences and obeying the LAW? The Word says, NO ONE is saved by the LAW, by OBEDIENCE. For if one could be saved by obedience, Christ died in vain. Read our past posts, Slavenomore, and you will see that this is the very question I have been asking you that you answered by saying Jesus preached to the dead. So it doesnt seem unreasonable to me to think you meant He continually preaches to the dead, SINCE many have died since He AROSE and never heard about Him.
quote:
Mj white said:
In fact in Strong's, there is no greek reference to the word all. That means the word all isn't even in the original. But my parallel Greek NT shows the word pantas. The usual word used for all [pas -strong's #3956] can also mean any, every, as many as, throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
I say:
Then we are reading 2 different sources. What I read said that in cases in which there is no qualifier after the word pas, that it means every single one, without exception
Read Strongs, you will see that you are wrong. What source are you using?
Mj white asked:
quote:
How do you know it is NOT the Holy Spirit who helps that conscience realize there must be more to life?
I say:
I think the Holy Spirit woos the conscience and thus influences the man into accepting Christ, but He doesnt force himslef on the man.
then
Mjwhite asked:
quote:
So boiled down, you are saying you got saved because you had righteous desires the others did not have. Will you credit these righteous desires to God? I dont think so, for if you did, then you would be sayimg God saved you by giving you righteous desires He did not give others
.
I say:
Yes, I do credit those righteous desires to God. He stirred my conscience, and my conscience and the Holy Spirit urged me to get right with God. Others listen to their conscience an dlive moral lives, but do not give themselves over to a relationship with The Lord. Still others ignorevthe conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
Are you saying The Holy Spirit woos every conscience? It seems so. Otherwise, it would seem to me that you are saying he did more for you than the others, hence proving my point.
So therefore it seems to me that you are saying He stirs everyones conscience. And what then is the result according to you? You gave me yours and theirs.
YOU: When the Holy Spirit stirred your conscience you made the righteous decision to give yourself over to Jesus.
OTHERS #1: They refused to give themselves over to Jesus, but agreed to live moral lives?
OTHERS #2: They ignored the conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
I will come back to you, but first let me discuss OTHERS #1. As rebels against God, as all are until they submit unto His Lordship, how can you say these people live moral lives? Oh sure, I would agree that from the standpoint of the world, the very same world that crucified Jesus, that they are moral, BUT since they have rejected the King, how could you say they are moral from Gods point of view? And since we are His children, and not children of the world, shouldnt we be looking from His point of view and not the worlds? OTHERS #2 are called sociopaths.
Now to you and your boast. You boast that your salvation was due to your ability to make the proper response to the stirring of your conscience that OTHERS failed to do. Now assuming they had as much head knowledge of the Gospel as you [for many never hear it] what is the difference between you and them? What caused you to accept the Gospel and them not? Are you more spiritually wiser? More spiritually moral? Some combination? What?
And what caused them to refuse the Gospel and you to accept it? Are they more wicked than you? Do they love sin more? Are they spiritually dumber than you? Less spiritually moral? A combination of these? What?
Where is your boast?
Mine is in the Lord. I am saved because He has mercy on me and brought me into His kingdom by revealing the truth to me and making the cross real to me. He doesnt do it for all. He did it for me and I cant understand why He would save a sinner like me. I certainly can not earn His love. But I love Him because he first loved me and saved me. My boast is in the cross of Jesus alone. For there God demonstrated His love for me and saved me. And such a demonstration would be futile if He didnt make it real to me. It is in His revelation to me that His love for me is revealed. That is why I trust Him, becauseI know He loves me.
Mj white said:
quote:
since you are still a sinner, are you not?
I say:
My flesh still sins, but I am a saint, as is every born again Christian. Christians are never referred to as sinners in the Bible. The term sinner always refers to an unregenerated person; one who has not accepted Christ, one whose sins are not forgiven. When Paul refers to himself as the chief of sinners, he was referring to his life before Christ.
Read James 4 to see you are wrong. I do not wish to quibble over this point, but why do you make a blanket statement? Your flesh sins, but you dont, is that what you are saying? And is not every action you make still yet accountable to God? Are you going to say, that wasnt me, just my flesh? Do you still not willfully with mind and body purposefully do what you know is wrong before God?
quote:
Mj white said:
You are like every Arminian i have encounterd so far in the respect that when i start probing into the WHY of your belief, you run. Am i exposing not a solid rock foundation but empty air?
What are you hiding? Why won't you answer my questions? And why do you answer them without openness? [like answering that those who died and never heard the gospel would get preached to them by Jesus, and then later, weeks later after being called on it, you qualify your answer to the point that it never really answered the original question.]
I can't make you answer, but i wonder why you duck so much.
I say:
When did I run? If I dont answer your questions, sometimes its because I misunderstand them. And sometimes, to be honest, its because you twist my words to mean something that they were never intended to mean. An example of this is when you say that I said that those who died without hearing the Gospel would get preached to by Jesus. The way you word that makes it seem as if I said it always happens. But I never said that, not once! I said it happened once, while Christ was dead for 3 days. I never said it continues to happen. But you twist and twist and twist. All I said about people who die now without having heard the Gospel is that they have had the truth revealed to them in some way (they have the law written on their hearts, not on paper or in words), and they are judged by God according to that.
AND the point I was making in asking if you were a sinner is to show that we still deserve damnation and still only escape it due to the mercy of God because of the work of Jesus.
AND as to the Law being on their hearts, that is why I asked you about them. That is why you told me about Jesus preaching to them. You are simply going around in circles and NOT addressing my point, which is why I say you are running.
The Law, according to Romans chapters 1 through 3, is on every heart and it condemns every one of us. There is NO SALVATION by the LAW. But you said:
I say: Yes, I do credit those righteous desires to God. He stirred my conscience, and my conscience and the Holy Spirit urged me to get right with God. Others listen to their conscience an dlive moral lives, but do not give themselves over to a relationship with The Lord. Still others ignorevthe conscience and the Holy Spirit altogether.
Now unless they know the gospel as true, what good does it do the Holy Spirit to stir their hearts? And if they never hear the Gospel, how can the believe it? [Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God, And how can they hear if there is no preacher?] So my question to you still stands [the one you answered by saying Christ preached to the dead!]:
How can those who never hear the Gospel be saved?
By listening to their consciences and obeying the LAW? The Word says, NO ONE is saved by the LAW, by OBEDIENCE. For if one could be saved by obedience, Christ died in vain. Read our past posts, Slavenomore, and you will see that this is the very question I have been asking you that you answered by saying Jesus preached to the dead. So it doesnt seem unreasonable to me to think you meant He continually preaches to the dead, SINCE many have died since He AROSE and never heard about Him.
quote:
Mj white said:
In fact in Strong's, there is no greek reference to the word all. That means the word all isn't even in the original. But my parallel Greek NT shows the word pantas. The usual word used for all [pas -strong's #3956] can also mean any, every, as many as, throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
I say:
Then we are reading 2 different sources. What I read said that in cases in which there is no qualifier after the word pas, that it means every single one, without exception
Read Strongs, you will see that you are wrong. What source are you using?
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
These brief moments of levity are certainly making this conversation more enjoyable. Thank you!
Actually this is a very good question you have asked. Please allow me to clarify, or more specifically, correct, what I mean. Sin is something God created. Now, I know most of you don't think so but let's look at this in a logical sense. What is sin? There are many different answers but basically they all mean "missing the mark of God's righteousness." More directly, it is the transgression against God's Law. So, what is it that defines sin? Obviously, God's Law. Who created God's Law? Who defines, and therefore determines, what is sinful? Again, God. Sin cannot exist apart from God's Law. Sin is the term used to identify our actions that "miss the mark." What I mean by the things that happen being God's Will takes a little more patience to understand. If I may, let me give you an example:
Imagine you work with a difficult person (not so hard to imagine for most of us). Everyday the person is grumpy, and answers you in short, curt statements. You, being the friendly person you are, have a hard time responding in godliness.
Many times I have heard Christians say something to the effect of, "Oh, this isn't a God thing. He can't want me to deal with this person."
The truth is, God did bring that person into your life, and He did it for a purpose. That purpose is for your sanctification. That purpose is to bring to light, to your eyes, your own sinfulness. Does God desire us to sin? No of course not. I did not mean to imply that He did. However, imagine that you respond "in kind" to your coworkers ungodliness. Guess what's going to happen? God will keep bringing difficult situations in to your life, continually exposing your ungodliness to your own eyes and one day He will give you the grace to overcome that difficult situation. Could you do it without his grace? Of course not. Then God will continue to bring difficult situations into your life all the while exposing your ungodliness to you. You can then draw upon the triumphs you have had with God, trusting in Him, knowing that He will deliver you, just as David knew:
1 Samuel 17:37
Moreover David said, "The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine."
So, in answer, no God does not make us sin. But He does bring about things in our lives knowing we will sin. See, we were a package deal. God restored us knowing we would continue to sin. And He is using our sinfulness to bring about our conformation.
"Woos?" How does one go about "wooing" a dead person. In our fallen state we are unresponsive to God's call. He must do something to change that. Are you honestly taking a different stance on the depravity issue than both the Calvinist and the Arminianist? Where do you stand on that? What does it mean to you when the Bible says man fell from grace? What are the characteristics of the fallen man with regard to their attitude towards God?
Urged but did not make you accept, right? So that acceptance thing, that was all your doing right? What was it that saved you again, God's stirring, the Holy Spirit's urging, or your acceptance?
Some live, but don't give, some ignore. Man, you sure do put a lot of emphasis on what we do to obtain our salvation.
I agree that our obedience glorifies God. But, as I've said, the ability to make a choice is not free will. Please, for the last time, explain/define what you mean by "free will."
Just guessing but, I don't think that's what he meant.
You think this constitutes free will? The ability to be disobedient to God? What about the many times in which people want something to come about but because God has not deemed that it will happen that way, it doesn't. In fact, it oftentimes is contrary to what they want. Is their will then free to override God's? Or is their will subject to God's Will? Hmmm...let's see. Their will is subject to God's so maybe it's not so free. What do you think?
It's not the "your side" thing that gets me. It's the incessant need for everyone to call me a Calvinist, as if it separates me from Christianity in some way.
Quite possible. It has been enjoyable either way.
To expound on this, I feel it's necessary to define that the sin nature of an unsaved person not only makes him inclined to sin, it leaves him with the choice of only sinning.
Catch ya later!
God bless.
Upvote
0
Maybe... maybe not...
God's will is effectual in all aspects of His creation, and since He created all things, then I suspect that He created sin, and uses it for our sanctification.
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Why would you say this?
The Bible is very clear about this:
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
God is also very clear about His purpose as to the institution of the Law:
Romans 5:20,21
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,<SUP> </SUP>so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
God, being just, had to make know the righteous standard, as well as the punishment for trangressing that standard:
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Just as we must do for our own children, God has set the standard. God has also foreordained that even in our failures we will learn and grow in godliness, just as we attempt to turn the failures of our children into learning experiences in which they will grow in their respect for God's Word and and their parents.
You see, the Law can only condemn us, it cannot justify us. The reason is because we are unable to keep the Law. Think about this as you would a speed limit sign. The speed limit sign cannot make you go the speed limit, just as the Law cannot, and does not make you obey. The only thing the speed limit sign, and the Law, can do is condemn you when you break it. This is not something about which we should despair. Our ability, or should I say inability, to keep the Law is not our downfall. God sent His Son to be a propitiation for our transgressing that Law. His death paid the penalty for our sins and released us, in God's eyes, from the guilt of that sin. We did not receive a pardon from the penalty of our sins. Justice was served. It was just served upon our Savior. Only after justice was served could God be just in applying mercy.
Sin is nothing more than a tool God uses to convict us and conform us to the image of His Son. This is a life long proces that will never be completed in this lifetime. Hopefully, though, as we grow in our love for God, we will grow in our obedience and our sinfulness will become less and less.
God bless.
Upvote
0
No, what I am saying is that the real me, the Spirit, does not sin. It is my shell, my flesh, that sins. Thaink that's wrong? Then why does Paul say the very same thing?
Romans 7:17
"But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good, I do not find."
That passage describes the struggle between the flesh (sin that dwells in him) and the Spirit (that which wills to do good). Just to note, I did not add the parentheses there - that phrase is in the Bible. He purposely made a distinction in between who he really is in Christ and the flesh that is his shell.
That does not mean I am not responsible for my sin. If I sin, it is because I choose to. Therefore, I am responsible for it.
I say:
Yes, people who knowingly sin against God deserve damnation and only avoid it because of the grace of the cross.
But when it comes to the "Christ preaching part" you are either accidentally or purposely misreading what I wrote. I never wrote that the people who die nowdays without hearing Christ have the benefit of Jesus preaching to them after they die. I said it happened once, when Christ was dead for 3 days. You accuse me of going around in circles, but you are the one who keeps coming back to that, when I didn't even write what you said I did.
I say:
But that's not what I said, and you know it. I said that those who die nowadays are judged by God according to what they do know. The only people that I ever claimed were preached to after death were those that were dead while Christ was. If you made any other assumptions about me saying it still goes on, that is your fault, not mine, for I never said that or implied it.
[/QUOTE]
This is my source:
http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter27.htm
However, even going by Strong's, "all" means "all" in this case. Substitute the word "any" in place of all in 1 Timothy 2:4, and you have:
"...who desires any men to be saved..."
If I asked you "Hey MJ, which men do you want saved, and you answered "any men", it means the same as "all men", because it encompasses all men, and you aren't specifying a certain group. If there were certain men you didn't want to be saved, you might say "any men except purple men".
Plug in all the other synonyms from Strong's, and it still works that way.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Reformationists,
Alas you are treating a complicated subject with too much simplicity. Sin is not a creation of God just because He created Law. God does not sin does He? You do not always sin do you? Therefore having a Law does not create sin.
Rather, the Law shows us how un-godlike we are. So in that sense, what is not God, is not completely Holy and perfect. Since we are other than God, we are less than God, less than His holiness, less than perfect. What we do then is also less then His holiness, less than His perfection, less than what is right and good. ["No one is good except the Father in Heaven."]
That is why Adam had to fall, he wasn't perfect, he wasn't God. That is why we still sin, we are not God. That is why Jesus did not sin, He was God.
Alas you are treating a complicated subject with too much simplicity. Sin is not a creation of God just because He created Law. God does not sin does He? You do not always sin do you? Therefore having a Law does not create sin.
Rather, the Law shows us how un-godlike we are. So in that sense, what is not God, is not completely Holy and perfect. Since we are other than God, we are less than God, less than His holiness, less than perfect. What we do then is also less then His holiness, less than His perfection, less than what is right and good. ["No one is good except the Father in Heaven."]
That is why Adam had to fall, he wasn't perfect, he wasn't God. That is why we still sin, we are not God. That is why Jesus did not sin, He was God.
Upvote
0
I say:
But you originally said If it happens, its God will, if it doesnt, it isnt Gods will. So then, are you saying there is a difference between Gods will and his desires? If there is a difference, please tell me what you think desire means and then what will means, just so that I understand where youre coming from.
I say:
Incorrect. I have never said I did anything other than make a simple decision to have salvation. A simple decision. No grand work. I was not th one who presented the Gospel to myself; I am simply the one who said Ill take it. How is that a lot of emphasis?
I say:
Free will means having the ability to decide on and choose our actions. And yes, that includes the ability to be disobedient to God. God is the one who allows us to have free will. That free will does not mean we have control over what happens to us. It means we have free will as to the decisions we make. I may indeed decide to rob a bank, and God places an obstacle in the way, and the bank is not robbed. That however, doesnt mean my free will to decide to rob the bank was taken away. It simply means that God stopped it. So, the effects and consequences of man's will being subject to God's will has no bearing on whether the will is free. No one here has claimed that "free will = free reign"
Upvote
0
Did Reformationist actually say that God created sin? Where did ya'll get that idea? I can't find it anywhere.
Upvote
0
Dear all,
He didn't say ot, humblejoe did.
quote:
Originally posted by calvinist
Perhaps it would be better to say that God did not create sin, but rather sin is an absence of God.
Maybe... maybe not...
God's will is effectual in all aspects of His creation, and since He created all things, then I suspect that He created sin, and uses it for our sanctification.
But he said:
Originally posted by calvinist
Perhaps it would be better to say that God did not create sin, but rather sin is an absence of God.
Calvinist
and Reformationist replied:
Why would you say this?
So he didn't actually say it at all, humblejoe did. So reformationists, if you think differently, then mea culpa
He didn't say ot, humblejoe did.
quote:
Originally posted by calvinist
Perhaps it would be better to say that God did not create sin, but rather sin is an absence of God.
Maybe... maybe not...
God's will is effectual in all aspects of His creation, and since He created all things, then I suspect that He created sin, and uses it for our sanctification.
But he said:
Originally posted by calvinist
Perhaps it would be better to say that God did not create sin, but rather sin is an absence of God.
Calvinist
and Reformationist replied:
Why would you say this?
So he didn't actually say it at all, humblejoe did. So reformationists, if you think differently, then mea culpa
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
I disagree. I'm curious though. If it was not God who CREATED sin, who did? Remember, I said "created," not committed.
Of course not. I have never said as much. I have to tell you, I don't think it's very incongruous to compare our inability to live a life free from sin to God's ability to create something but not be affected by it.
Well, I think your getting very circumspect here in an effort to sound profound. The Law was given for a twofold reason. First, to show us God's righteousness. And second, to show us that we could not keep that Law. You see, God never expected us to be able to keep the Law in it's entirity. It's not like God was sitting around hoping man wouldn't mess up time and time again. He knew we would. The Law was given to condemn us. If you could keep the Law, you wouldn't need a Savior. But you can't, so you do need a Savior.
I know you guys think it makes God bad, or tainted in some way if you acknowledge that God created sin. S2S, for the record, I did say it, and I'll say it again. God created sin. God did not sin, He just created it. I'll put this simply for anyone having a hard time grasping the concept. Before the Law, man was not held accountable for sin because what was sin had not been revealed to man. After the Law, what was sin was determined, BY GOD.
My example of the speed limit sign is spot on in this example. Before speed limit signs you could not get in trouble for going 85 mph on a residential street. State/County/City government said, "Okay, the speed limit will be 25 mph on a residential street. So, anything above that is speeding."
Who is it that created speeding? Was it to be the first speeder? No. It was whoever was given the authority to set the speed limit. Look closely, I said "created," not commited.
So anyone who wasn't perfect and wasn't God had to fall? What about all the angels that didn't fall? Okay, again, Adam had to fall because it was part of God's plan. If Adam didn't fall, we wouldn't need a Savior. Do you think it was coincidence, or that God didn't expect it. It was according to His plan.
No. We sin because up until we are saved we are bound by a sinful nature. Not only do we sin, but we only sin. Everything we do is sinful because everything is based on our own selfish desires. Jesus did not sin because, like Adam, and like a person who is saved, He was not bound by a sinful nature. However, unlike Adam, and unlike us, He was obedient in all things. We are made righteous by works. They're just not our works, they're His.
God bless.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dear reformationist,
I think we are talking around each other.
quote:
Rather, the Law shows us how un-godlike we are.
you said
Well, I think your getting very circumspect here in an effort to sound profound. The Law was given for a twofold reason. First, to show us God's righteousness. And second, to show us that we could not keep that Law. You see, God never expected us to be able to keep the Law in it's entirity. It's not like God was sitting around hoping man wouldn't mess up time and time again. He knew we would. The Law was given to condemn us. If you could keep the Law, you wouldn't need a Savior. But you can't, so you do need a Savior.
I agree 100 %
you said: Before the Law, man was not held accountable for sin because what was sin had not been revealed to man. After the Law, what was sin was determined, BY GOD.
I agree 100%
quote:
That is why Adam had to fall, he wasn't perfect, he wasn't God.
you asked:
So anyone who wasn't perfect and wasn't God had to fall? What about all the angels that didn't fall?
Yes, at least any human. I don't know enough about angels to comment on them.
you:
Okay, again, Adam had to fall because it was part of God's plan. If Adam didn't fall, we wouldn't need a Savior. Do you think it was coincidence, or that God didn't expect it. It was according to His plan.
I agree 100%. it was part of the plan.
quote:
That is why we still sin, we are not God.
you.
No. We sin because up until we are saved we are bound by a sinful nature.
Then why did Aadam sin?
you continue:
Not only do we sin, but we only sin. Everything we do is sinful because everything is based on our own selfish desires. Jesus did not sin because, like Adam, and like a person who is saved, He was not bound by a sinful nature. However, unlike Adam, and unlike us, He was obedient in all things. We are made righteous by works. They're just not our works, they're His.
I agree 100%.
But I was speaking about we as Christians still sinning, which we do.
God bless.
I think we are talking around each other.
quote:
Rather, the Law shows us how un-godlike we are.
you said
Well, I think your getting very circumspect here in an effort to sound profound. The Law was given for a twofold reason. First, to show us God's righteousness. And second, to show us that we could not keep that Law. You see, God never expected us to be able to keep the Law in it's entirity. It's not like God was sitting around hoping man wouldn't mess up time and time again. He knew we would. The Law was given to condemn us. If you could keep the Law, you wouldn't need a Savior. But you can't, so you do need a Savior.
I agree 100 %
you said: Before the Law, man was not held accountable for sin because what was sin had not been revealed to man. After the Law, what was sin was determined, BY GOD.
I agree 100%
quote:
That is why Adam had to fall, he wasn't perfect, he wasn't God.
you asked:
So anyone who wasn't perfect and wasn't God had to fall? What about all the angels that didn't fall?
Yes, at least any human. I don't know enough about angels to comment on them.
you:
Okay, again, Adam had to fall because it was part of God's plan. If Adam didn't fall, we wouldn't need a Savior. Do you think it was coincidence, or that God didn't expect it. It was according to His plan.
I agree 100%. it was part of the plan.
quote:
That is why we still sin, we are not God.
you.
No. We sin because up until we are saved we are bound by a sinful nature.
Then why did Aadam sin?
you continue:
Not only do we sin, but we only sin. Everything we do is sinful because everything is based on our own selfish desires. Jesus did not sin because, like Adam, and like a person who is saved, He was not bound by a sinful nature. However, unlike Adam, and unlike us, He was obedient in all things. We are made righteous by works. They're just not our works, they're His.
I agree 100%.
But I was speaking about we as Christians still sinning, which we do.
God bless.
Upvote
0
Dear Reformationist,
A sin can be described as missing the mark. Like missing the speed limit and going too fast. The Law, or those who created the Law did not do the sin, nor would there be any sin IF no one broke the Law. The law then, as you said, establishes the righteousness of God. Any lack of that righteousness in any way shape or form is sin. But just because man didn't have a law, doesn't mean they didn't sin. First, the Law was only given to the Jews, but most people had much of the basic law already even without contact with the Jews. This shows that the law [as Romans 2:12-16 tells us] was written on their hearts. At least enough of the law so as to show they violated their own consciences.
Sin then is just NOT-LAW, or NOT-GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS, or simply the lack of perfect godliness. Then we see that whatever we do outside of faith is sin. And so as rebels before we were saved, all we did was outside of faith, and godless and therefore sin.
Since we now walk in faith, trusting God, what we do comes under the blood, because God in His mercy passes by our sins and does not account them to us since He has accounted them to Jesus.
But God did not create sin, because the Law is simply a reflection of His righteousness. Anything short of Him then is sin. Since the Law is a reflection of His righteousness, and he did not create His righteousness but He always has been, He did not create sin, but He created beings less then Him who could not live up to Him [His standard, His righteousness] we therefore would fall short of Him and sin.
So possibly The angels then are His created beings who reflect His righteousness. By withdrawing something from some of them, they then became less then Him and became Satan and the demons.
A sin can be described as missing the mark. Like missing the speed limit and going too fast. The Law, or those who created the Law did not do the sin, nor would there be any sin IF no one broke the Law. The law then, as you said, establishes the righteousness of God. Any lack of that righteousness in any way shape or form is sin. But just because man didn't have a law, doesn't mean they didn't sin. First, the Law was only given to the Jews, but most people had much of the basic law already even without contact with the Jews. This shows that the law [as Romans 2:12-16 tells us] was written on their hearts. At least enough of the law so as to show they violated their own consciences.
Sin then is just NOT-LAW, or NOT-GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS, or simply the lack of perfect godliness. Then we see that whatever we do outside of faith is sin. And so as rebels before we were saved, all we did was outside of faith, and godless and therefore sin.
Since we now walk in faith, trusting God, what we do comes under the blood, because God in His mercy passes by our sins and does not account them to us since He has accounted them to Jesus.
But God did not create sin, because the Law is simply a reflection of His righteousness. Anything short of Him then is sin. Since the Law is a reflection of His righteousness, and he did not create His righteousness but He always has been, He did not create sin, but He created beings less then Him who could not live up to Him [His standard, His righteousness] we therefore would fall short of Him and sin.
So possibly The angels then are His created beings who reflect His righteousness. By withdrawing something from some of them, they then became less then Him and became Satan and the demons.
Upvote
0
Reformationist
Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Probably. This often happens when two people use different words to describe the same thing. No big deal. I think we will both come out of this understanding God's grace a bit better.
I could not begin to know why Adam chose to disobey his Father whom he loved so much. The ironic thing about Adam and Eve's disobedience is that everyone assumes there was some negative motive for disobeying. The most likely motive I can think of for their disobedience is their desire to be like Him whom they loved so much. Nonetheless, it was disobedience.
Adam ability to sin or not sin is the same as that of the saved person today. I said ability, not probability. Let me explain my understanding of the nature of man and how it relates to man in the pre-Fall, fallen, and regenerate portions of their life.
Adam and Eve were created as perfect as could be. As you note, they were not perfect, else they wouldn't have sinned. But there is a HUUUUUUUGE difference between the nature of pre-Fall man (Adam and Eve), post-Fall man (Adam and Eve and everyone else after the Fall, except Jesus), and regenerate man (saved people).
Pre-Fall man was created with the ability to sin, obviously, but was able to choose according to a nature that was not bound by sin. He could make a decision based strictly on His love for God.
Post-Fall man inherited a sinful nature that desired to sin. Sinning was not the inclination, it was the only option. His actions were never compelled by his love for God because, simply, he didn't love God. Love was not in him, nor could he generate love for another from his fallen heart.
Regenerate (saved) man is restored to a pre-Fall state in that he has the ability to, once again, choose based solely on his love for his Creator. The difference between regenerate man and pre-Fall man is that regenerate man now has an old nature that still desires to be appeased. This marks the process of sanctification that Christians strive for, the "putting off" of the old man and "putting on" of righteousness. We will fail daily but we know that our sins have been accounted for and God is working in us the desire and ability to do for His good pleasure.
This is explained in the explanation of regenerate man, above.
God bless you too brother.
Probably. This often happens when two people use different words to describe the same thing. No big deal. I think we will both come out of this understanding God's grace a bit better. I could not begin to know why Adam chose to disobey his Father whom he loved so much. The ironic thing about Adam and Eve's disobedience is that everyone assumes there was some negative motive for disobeying. The most likely motive I can think of for their disobedience is their desire to be like Him whom they loved so much. Nonetheless, it was disobedience.
Adam ability to sin or not sin is the same as that of the saved person today. I said ability, not probability. Let me explain my understanding of the nature of man and how it relates to man in the pre-Fall, fallen, and regenerate portions of their life.
Adam and Eve were created as perfect as could be. As you note, they were not perfect, else they wouldn't have sinned. But there is a HUUUUUUUGE difference between the nature of pre-Fall man (Adam and Eve), post-Fall man (Adam and Eve and everyone else after the Fall, except Jesus), and regenerate man (saved people).
Pre-Fall man was created with the ability to sin, obviously, but was able to choose according to a nature that was not bound by sin. He could make a decision based strictly on His love for God.
Post-Fall man inherited a sinful nature that desired to sin. Sinning was not the inclination, it was the only option. His actions were never compelled by his love for God because, simply, he didn't love God. Love was not in him, nor could he generate love for another from his fallen heart.
Regenerate (saved) man is restored to a pre-Fall state in that he has the ability to, once again, choose based solely on his love for his Creator. The difference between regenerate man and pre-Fall man is that regenerate man now has an old nature that still desires to be appeased. This marks the process of sanctification that Christians strive for, the "putting off" of the old man and "putting on" of righteousness. We will fail daily but we know that our sins have been accounted for and God is working in us the desire and ability to do for His good pleasure.
This is explained in the explanation of regenerate man, above.
God bless you too brother.
Upvote
0
Dear reformationist,
you said:
Pre-Fall man was created with the ability to sin, obviously, but was able to choose according to a nature that was not bound by sin. He could make a decision based strictly on His love for God.
He had free will? (-;
He obviously didn't have a very deep love for God. He only had one RULE not to break, and he broke it.
I think love for God is something we need to learn to do and have as we struggle with this world and get to know and understand His love for us despite our sinfulness. Adam never had these hurdles for he was living under LAW not love. We sin and break a LAW, God still loves us as defined by our continual attachment to the Body. Adam was banished, punished for his breaking of the Law.
Adam then was not under grace but under Law. Love reveals itself only under grace. It is because we are under grace, we desire to obey the one who loves us. Those under law seek to obey, not out of love, but necessity.
you said:
Pre-Fall man was created with the ability to sin, obviously, but was able to choose according to a nature that was not bound by sin. He could make a decision based strictly on His love for God.
He had free will? (-;
He obviously didn't have a very deep love for God. He only had one RULE not to break, and he broke it.
I think love for God is something we need to learn to do and have as we struggle with this world and get to know and understand His love for us despite our sinfulness. Adam never had these hurdles for he was living under LAW not love. We sin and break a LAW, God still loves us as defined by our continual attachment to the Body. Adam was banished, punished for his breaking of the Law.
Adam then was not under grace but under Law. Love reveals itself only under grace. It is because we are under grace, we desire to obey the one who loves us. Those under law seek to obey, not out of love, but necessity.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hello Everyone,
It's 7:19 AM, and I didn't sleep well at all (I didn't fall asleep till about 3). But I had a very good day yesterday. My sister is having some stomach problems, and the doctor told her that her problem was either gall bladder problems or an ulcer or pancreas problems. Well, pancreas problems are a very serious matter - life and death. So, she had some tests done, and my family has been praying that it wouldn't be pancreas related. Well, she got her results back yesterday, and yes indeed, it's gall bladder. She's going to have to have surgery, but that's still much better than pancreas problems. I praise the Lord for that! Thank you Jesus!
Anyway, my point to all this is that, in light of that answered prayer, I got to thinking "What is the point of certain things?" One of the things that now seems pointless, compared to praising God for his great works, is this argument we've been having. It's gone on for 35 pages now, and nobody has switched sides. Raise your hand if you've changed your mind. Like I suspected, not one hand. All we're doing at this point is creating dissension among the brethern. And I do mean brethern, for even though our ideas on the scope of attonement differ greatly, there is nothing in any of these posts that make me think that any of us are not what we say we are - Christians who love the Lord.
So, I guess I'll shut up now on this argument. I offer this for all Christians here, whatever the belief on atonement is:
1)Love the Lord.
2)In your life, shine His love to others.
3)Walk in the Spirit
God bless ya'll
S2SNM
It's 7:19 AM, and I didn't sleep well at all (I didn't fall asleep till about 3). But I had a very good day yesterday. My sister is having some stomach problems, and the doctor told her that her problem was either gall bladder problems or an ulcer or pancreas problems. Well, pancreas problems are a very serious matter - life and death. So, she had some tests done, and my family has been praying that it wouldn't be pancreas related. Well, she got her results back yesterday, and yes indeed, it's gall bladder. She's going to have to have surgery, but that's still much better than pancreas problems. I praise the Lord for that! Thank you Jesus!
Anyway, my point to all this is that, in light of that answered prayer, I got to thinking "What is the point of certain things?" One of the things that now seems pointless, compared to praising God for his great works, is this argument we've been having. It's gone on for 35 pages now, and nobody has switched sides. Raise your hand if you've changed your mind. Like I suspected, not one hand. All we're doing at this point is creating dissension among the brethern. And I do mean brethern, for even though our ideas on the scope of attonement differ greatly, there is nothing in any of these posts that make me think that any of us are not what we say we are - Christians who love the Lord.
So, I guess I'll shut up now on this argument. I offer this for all Christians here, whatever the belief on atonement is:
1)Love the Lord.
2)In your life, shine His love to others.
3)Walk in the Spirit
God bless ya'll
S2SNM
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
