Understanding Adam and Eve in Calvinism

[twin1954]

Double post deleted.

 

[twin1954]

Adam's will was not enslaved to sin as ours is. I'm not sure if federal headship is believed by Arminians, in other words our "in Adamness." That biblical truth that declares we were in Adam's loins and in effect share in his guilt and original rebellion.
There is speculation that if Adam didn't sin then God would have simply zapped Eve and gave Adam another partner. I'm not so sure of that. It was Adams duty to protect Eve and God's honor by crushing the serpent and not letting him tempt the woman or let her partake of that crime. He stood by it seems silently and spinelessly then partook. It was Adam that plunged the race into sin. It seems to read that their eyes (including hers) were opened, not when she first ate, but after she gave to her husband and "he did eat."
Anyways, the point is that no one after that starts with a clean slate, neutral towards sin.

The speculation that you mention is based on how it actually portrays the Gospel. Adam loved his wife and gave himself for her.

 

[TaylorSexton]

...for Him to foresee what will happen must mean that He learns and for Him to learn means that He changes. That is open theism in a nut shell.

While I love my Arminian brothers and sisters, this is a contradiction (not a tension)—an implication that must be true—which I earnestly wish they would admit. Until that is done, conversation is impossible. The fact is this, and cannot be proven otherwise: libertarian free will and divine sovereignty and omniscience cannot exist simultaneously.

What you call arrogance I call assurance. I was never anything less than open and kind with you. Why is it that when folks have no real thought out argument they resort to calling us who do arrogant and unkind?

My complaint exactly. Where, sir, have we been unkind?

 

[twin1954]

No debate necessary, you have assumed you've given the issue thought and I have not, or showed your arrogance. And you have also shown you detest others views, even when they are not barging in to push those views, but trying to help with a simple question by sharing their own view. The result of that was essentially, "We don't believe that way (I had no idea, and didn't realize I was stepping into anything but a thread were someone was asking advice) so shut up or get out, or else". Not exactly passive.

Honestly, you don't seem like very nice people and I've already been given an idea of how any debate would go so, no thank you..

What you call arrogance I call assurance of belief. I assume that you have not given your argument much thought because of the obvious necessary conclusion if your premise is true. I simply pointed out the conclusion and you ignored it and now go on to call me arrogant and not nice. Why is it that when folks have no actual argument they resort to to false accusations of not being nice people and of being arrogant because we actually do have a a logical and convincing argument.

I was never anything less than open and kind to you.

 

[twin1954]

While I love my Arminian brothers and sisters, this is a contradiction (not a tension)—an implication that must be true—which I earnestly wish they would admit. Until that is done, conversation is impossible. The fact is this, and cannot be proven otherwise: libertarian free will and divine sovereignty and omniscience cannot exist simultaneously.



My complaint exactly. Where, sir, have we been unkind?

The second part of my post that you quoted accidentally got deleted because I thought that I had double posted so it now appears, with a few small changes, below yours. I thought that I would explain why so that folks, you included, might not be confused because you quote a post that hadn't been made yet.

 

[stenerson]

The speculation that you mention is based on how it actually portrays the Gospel. Adam loved his wife and gave himself for her.

Yeah, I've heard some of Don Fortner's interpretation on this so I more or less know what you're assuming. That is that Adam's rebellion and fall was a shadow of Christ's self-sacrifice for the Church. I don't buy that but wouldn't go to war over it.

 

[twin1954]

Yeah, I've heard some of Don Fortner's interpretation on this so I more or less know what you're assuming. That is that Adam's rebellion and fall was a shadow of Christ's self-sacrifice for the Church. I don't buy that but wouldn't go to war over it.

Yes, while I agree with Don on this I don't take my interpretation from him. I actually came to that interpretation before I heard Don mention it.

You don't have to agree with me. It is OK if you are wrong. wink.

Love ya brother.

 

[stenerson]

Yes, while I agree with Don on this I don't take my interpretation from him. I actually came to that interpretation before I heard Don mention it.

You don't have to agree with me. It is OK if you are wrong. wink.

Love ya brother.