The Fall

[Ormly]

Ormly, God arranged the Fall as demonstrated yet again in post #196. Saying the verses do not add up to an arrangement without offering an alternative view is not compelling.

Sorry you see it that way, Van. The fact you do limits you by binding you to a psuedo center of God's ultimate intention; i.e., redemption.

 

[Rick Otto]

Wow. You guys are using some impressive verbiage with refreshing brevity. Kudos for that.
Let me know when ya want me to sort it all out for ya.

 

[Rick Otto]

God didn't arrange the fall. He foreknew it and He pre-arranged the remedy for the consequence and its causation.

You reduce an intimate knowledge of His own determinations in creating (foreknowlege), to clairvoyance. Omniscience foreknows. Clairvoyance only foresees.

 

[Ormly]

You reduce an intimate knowledge of His own determinations in creating (foreknowlege), to clairvoyance. Omniscience foreknows. Clairvoyance only foresees.

Given your perspective of God's purposes you would explain it just that way. However, you conveniently overlooked His planned remedy in your accusation. Remedies don't proceed from clairvoyance.

 

[Van]

Ormly, disparagment of others demonstrates your position is untenable. God arranged the fall, as demonstrated in post #196, and nothing of merit has been offered in opposition.

The Fall resulted in all mankind being made sinners, separated from God, and unable to do anything to merit becoming unseparated from God.

But the Fall did not result in being unable to seek God, to seek the righteousness of God, either through the works of the Law, or through faith in Christ, Romans 9:30-33.

The account of the Fall, given in Genesis, is consistent with this view, and inconsistent with the mistaken view of Calvinism as demonstrated in the opening post of the thread.

 

[Ormly]

Ormly, disparagment of others demonstrates your position is untenable. God arranged the fall, as demonstrated in post #196, and nothing of merit has been offered in opposition.

The Fall resulted in all mankind being made sinners, separated from God, and unable to do anything to merit becoming unseparated from God.

But the Fall did not result in being unable to seek God, to seek the righteousness of God, either through the works of the Law, or through faith in Christ, Romans 9:30-33.

The account of the Fall, given in Genesis, is consistent with this view, and inconsistent with the mistaken view of Calvinism as demonstrated in the opening post of the thread.

Because I disagree my disagreement is untenable? That is not very creative of you, Van. . . . but it does push the envelope.

BTW, #196 demonstrated your short -"fall", pun intended.

 

[nobdysfool]

If disparagement of others demonstrates that ones' position is untenable (and it does, in some cases, when it is used as a dodge to avoid questions), then Van's position has been untenable for a very long time. The constant disparagement of Calvinism, and Calvinists, and some Calvinists in particular, demonstrates the bankruptcy of his view, by his own assessment.

Therefore, leaving untenable positions by the wayside, let's find one that IS tenable. Ormly indicates that he believes he has the correct view. Let's hear it. And, can we keep the assumptions about Calvinists, and others, out of it?

Ormly, please state your view, and show us why it is tenable, in your opinion.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Ormly;Given your perspective of God's purposes you would explain it just that way.

I'm non-plussed by that remark. Pardon me if I'm being dense, but I don't understand the point of asserting the obvious fact that ones explanations reflect one's perspective. Ordinarily that is the case in every instance.

However, you conveniently overlooked His planned remedy in your accusation.

Sorry, I didn't intend to "accuse" it was only intended as an assertion.
I don't see how I overlooked His "remedy", either. Maybe you can help me with that. Actualy, I thought I was including it along with every fact of creation, which I would assume to be known in His omniscience(all-knowingness), previous to creating... which is what the "fore" in divine knowlege is about (foreknowlege).

Remedies don't proceed from clairvoyance.

Sorry, another indecipherable comment for my one brain cell that only works part-time. Clairvoyance is perception, irrespective of intention from which problems as well as remedies may proceed. I don't understand how anything proceeds from either foreknowlege or clairvoyance (without intent).

The point is His sovereignity expressed in predestination, to His glory.

 

[justsurfing]

I'm non-plussed by that remark. Pardon me if I'm being dense, but I don't understand the point of asserting the obvious fact that ones explanations reflect one's perspective. Ordinarily that is the case in every instance.

I can't "amen" you because I don't see a scripture verse... OR... a truly theological statement. I merely see a logical premise... so logical... so self-evident... that while I can't "amen"...

I consider it wholly appropriate to say, "Yeah!"

Nonplussed... sound reason... that has to be Bible kinda LOGOS thinkin'.

I don't see how I overlooked His "remedy", either. Maybe you can help me with that. Actualy, I thought I was including it along with every fact of creation, which I would assume to be known in His omniscience(all-knowingness), previous to creating... which is what the "fore" in divine knowlege is about ..."

Rick, to prove your point... you would have to prove that God remained in control over His creation.

If God was merely clairvoyant in foreknowing - God would have placed man in control over himself and God's creation.

If God was active in bringing His own will to pass - thus sovereign - the Bible would somewhere mention that God had an active will and a plan.

The Bible doesn't say that anywhere... does it?

For God to be anything more than clairvoyantly knowing in advance and foretelling the future... that would mean God is not in handcuffs and man has the key.

God can't do anything on earth without our permission... because we, mankind, are in control, right?

According to the clairvoyant view?

My one cell brain deduces this... if God merely foreknows:

We are free.

God is in handcuffs. God can do nothing... if WE... do not so wil.

That is theology.

(Or the parable of narcissistic blindness... at work.)

What does your one cell brain deduce would be the picture of a clairvoyant God with no "veto" power over man's will???

Just wondered.

Also, what is one minus one?

I think believing God can do nothing without man's pre-approval... is ground "zero".

Blessings.

 

[justsurfing]

Rick,

P.S. You Haliburton contractor in Iraq... do you know a friend of mine: Harry Nelson?

(a fellow Iraq contractor)

 

[Van]

According to forum rules, it is appropriate to address the positions held, but not the person holding the position. Those that say to disparage a position is the same as disparging a person are rewriting the rules, equating inappropriate behavior with appropriate behavior.

The Calvinist position has been shown to be untenable because it is unbiblical. Total Spiritual Inability is unbiblical because unregenerates have the ability to seek God and receive the gospel, and to be enlightened by the gospel. Thus the biblical view is that the Fall resulted in limited spiritual ability.

This biblical position has been demonstrated independently with four passages of scripture. First we have God hardening fallen men to prevent them from coming to Christ. Next we have the parable of the measures, where a person's limited spiritual ability is removed. Then we have the kind of soil that receives the gospel with joy. And finally, we have those enlightened but not saved in the Hebrews 6:4-6 passage. Any one of these passages demonstrates that "total Spiritual Inability" is unbiblical, but taken together the evidence is overwhelming

 

[Rick Otto]

My sincerest pleasure to provide "justsurfing", thank you for the opportunity...
1Sa 12:7 - Now therefore stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD of all the righteous acts of the LORD, which he did to you and to your fathers. Isa 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

quote=justsurfing;Rick, to prove your point... you would have to prove that God remained in control over His creation.

...Another reasonable conclusion based on the definitions of omnipotence & omniscience. The temptation is to think that allowing something He knows will happen isn't control... but indeed it is, in it's passive form, the same as I "allow" my car to roll forward after letting off the gas, & before braking or continuing to accelerate.

If God was merely clairvoyant in foreknowing - God would have placed man in control over himself and God's creation.

That isn't immediately obvious to all, but nonetheless true. Man has alarming amounts of control & knowlege, but not even a capacity for infinite knowlege & control, and an alarming lack of self-control, eh?

If God was active in bringing His own will to pass - thus sovereign - the Bible would somewhere mention that God had an active will and a plan.

The Bible doesn't say that anywhere... does it?

Well, I think in several places addressed to several specific, but intimately linked elements of that plan, it does without a doubt, At this point I suspect you already know all this but are prompting me to do all the hard work, which isn't a whine because everybody profits in a labor of love:

Eph 1:4-5 : According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:11 - In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain(this one shows personal responsibility is only dependant upon motive, not freedom of volition)Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.Ro 8:30 - Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

For God to be anything more than clairvoyantly knowing in advance and foretelling the future... that would mean God is not in handcuffs and man has the key.

I think you might have a typing error in there..

God can't do anything on earth without our permission... because we, mankind, are in control, right?

In terms of salvation, free will renders Christ's death as only making salvation possible, not an enduring adoption of the elect. Notice in the plan, not all mankind was placed "in Christ", only the elect... so when Paul says:

1Co 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. The spiritual dynamic is the same in each case, but the individuals involved differ.

My one cell brain deduces this... if God merely foreknows:We are free.

I agree.

God is in handcuffs. God can do nothing... if WE... do not so wil.

Well, not nothin'... but total sovereignity is no longer His. He has definitely ceded control of the eternal destiny His created beings unto their doomed-by-Adam selves. If Adam didn't completely seal our fate as the above scripture alone concedes, we wouldn't require redemption. Free will would be our redeeming feature. Christ's sacrifice wouldn't redeem, it would only make it possible for us to redeem ourselves.

You're right, narcissism is a form of blindness.

What does your one cell brain deduce would be the picture of a clairvoyant God with no "veto" power over man's will???Just wondered.

Pretty lame. UnGodlike. If God completely stood back, hands-off, we would do like Judas, suicide. I should be dead several times by now, that I'm aware of.

Also, what is one minus one?I think believing God can do nothing without man's pre-approval... is ground "zero".

Agreed.

Blessings.

Amen.
I'm fastin' a bit... eating, but staying hungry. Consequently (this time) I'm seeing that it is amazing how easily we confuse our physical needs with our psychological needs.
Thank you, and no, I'm just a socio-political wise-cracker. I'm on The Platte River between Lincoln Ne.(The Capitolist City), and Omaha, Ne (The Worker's Paradise ) I'm a one-man night shift in a 15 man sign shop. We produce fleetgraphics for railroads & trucking companies mostly. We do a lot of stickers & decals, but only do shirts & hats for big accounts we already have (to labor intensive for profit).
I made a bumper sticker that says WALL*Mart, but the letters are in "Rickshaw" font style, like ya see on Chinese Restaraunts, & the star in the middle is red. The caption underneath says "Selling out America one product at a time".
Another funny jab I've heard is "The People's Republic of Wall*Mart".
What does Harry do for Haliburton?

 

[Ormly]

If disparagement of others demonstrates that ones' position is untenable (and it does, in some cases, when it is used as a dodge to avoid questions), then Van's position has been untenable for a very long time. The constant disparagement of Calvinism, and Calvinists, and some Calvinists in particular, demonstrates the bankruptcy of his view, by his own assessment.

Therefore, leaving untenable positions by the wayside, let's find one that IS tenable. Ormly indicates that he believes he has the correct view. Let's hear it. And, can we keep the assumptions about Calvinists, and others, out of it?

Ormly, please state your view, and show us why it is tenable, in your opinion.

Better yet, why don't you give your understanding, or lack of, what you believe my view is? That might help narrow down what it is I am expected to "clarify".

 

[Ormly]

and an alarming lack of self-control, eh?

And IS the bondage we find ourselves in because of the fall.

 

[nobdysfool]

Better yet, why don't you give your understanding, or lack of, what you believe my view is? That might help narrow down what it is I am expected to "clarify".

Mostly because I haven't been able to discern exactly what your position is. that's why I asked you to state it clearly. So far, that hasn't happened, and the on-going exchange doesn't seem to be leading to that. I have to wonder about someone who won't state their position, when asked.

Funny thing is, most of your answers to me assume that you already know my position, because I identify myself as a Calvinist. So why the deflection? Is your position so fragile that it can't stand up to examination?

 

[nobdysfool]

And IS the bondage we find ourselves in because of the fall.

Quick answer: Yes, because we cannot raise above that which Adam caused, by our own efforts or exertion. If we could, we would have no need of God's Grace in order to do so. Seems that there was a man over 1000 years ago who thought that we could do so...and was judged a heretic.

Sin is not a cloak that we can just take off if we decide to, it is a deformity of our very being.

 

[Ormly]

Mostly because I haven't been able to discern exactly what your position is. that's why I asked you to state it clearly. So far, that hasn't happened, and the on-going exchange doesn't seem to be leading to that. I have to wonder about someone who won't state their position, when asked.

Funny thing is, most of your answers to me assume that you already know my position, because I identify myself as a Calvinist. So why the deflection? Is your position so fragile that it can't stand up to examination?

To the contrary. I believe it is yours that won't stand the light of day.

I explained my position adnausm. You gotta question about any of it? Ask. You can't understand my position? Blame it on your 'snapped shut' perspective that limits you.

 

[nobdysfool]

Folks, has Ormly stated his position regarding this subject in any clear way? If so, please cite the posts in this thread where he did so.

As for my position not standing up to the light, bring yours out, and let's compare them.

 

[Van]

The Fall resulted in mankind being made sinners, separated from God, without any ability to merit an unseparated status. But it did not render mankind unable to seek God, and to worship God, and to put their faith in God and His Christ. God arranged the Fall.

The Calvinist position has been shown to be untenable because it is unbiblical. Total Spiritual Inability is unbiblical because unregenerates have the ability to seek God and receive the gospel, and to be enlightened by the gospel. Thus the biblical view is that the Fall resulted in limited spiritual ability.

This biblical position has been demonstrated independently with four passages of scripture. First we have God hardening fallen men to prevent them from coming to Christ. Next we have the parable of the measures, where a person's limited spiritual ability is removed. Then we have the kind of soil that receives the gospel with joy. And finally, we have those enlightened but not saved in the Hebrews 6:4-6 passage. Any one of these passages demonstrates that "total Spiritual Inability" is unbiblical, but taken together the evidence is overwhelming

 

[Ormly]

The Fall resulted in mankind being made sinners, separated from God, without any ability to merit an unseparated status. But it did not render mankind unable to seek God, and to worship God, and to put their faith in God and His Christ. God arranged the Fall.

Why is this except they were not made sinners, thus retaining a conscience that could go either as Adam's proved could happen. It doen't a sin nature to do that, as Adam proved, just a vulnerable innocent one with no allegiance to anyone but its "self". This is why there can be found in the OT those who were righteous and those who were not righteous, neither group, of course could redeem themselves.

God arranged creation and He aranged the fix for the fall. He never arrange the fall itself. He didn't have to.