Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All die because they are descendants of Adam, which is why new-born babies die without "sinning.""as in Adam all die," means in the same way, by sinning.
So you are saying Paul is saying every man except Adam is a sinner before they are drawn away by their own lust?However, in Paul's usage it refers to the unregenerate (fallen) nature.
No, Adam is not "every" man. Adam is the "first" MAN (Adam). (1 Corinthians 15:21-23; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49; Romans 5:14)
Everyone else is a descendant of Adam.
(From formerly known as Oscarr): If God had made Judas betray Jesus, he would plead duress at the judgment and he would have had to be acquitted. No. Judas chose of his own free will to betray Jesus, and he will be judged on that choice. Because he had a track record of making sinful choices, he allowed Satan to enter his heart which led to the tragic outcome.
All die because they are descendants of Adam, which is why new-born babies die without "sinning."
Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?
I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot). But never because God caused him to do so. It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.
So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love -- Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind, even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).
Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?
I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot). But never because God caused him to do so. It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.
So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love -- Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind, even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).
Was Adam a sinner before he disobeyed God?So you are saying Paul is saying every man except Adam is a sinner
Paul is addressing the church, not Adam, and is talking about the descendants of Adam, not the man God created as an adult, without a fallen nature, and who did not inherit his fallen nature as everyone else in the human race does, from him.before they are drawn away by their own lust?
God didn't have to cause Judas to do so, all God had to do was lift his restraining hand on Satan and Satan would do the rest.Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?
I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot).
But never because God caused him to do so.
However, that is speculation. . .nowhere found in the text.It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.
So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love --
Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind,
Jesus had been in Jerusalem since Sunday teaching in the temple courts every day.even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is
to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).
It shows the mystery of personal choice vs the plan of God.Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?
I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot). But never because God caused him to do so. It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.
So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love -- Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind, even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).
Does he not deal with the fallen nature, sinful flesh? There you have it.Actually the doctrine of predestination as taught by Calvin has nothing whatsoever to do with mans choice, decision or will but Gods alone.
I would like to see where Calvin disagreed. But Calvin is not Calvinism, anyway.Oh I agree , Calvin disagreed .
Actually the doctrine of predestination as taught by Calvin has nothing whatsoever to do with mans choice, decision or will but Gods alone.
Reminds me of John MacArthur referring to the attitude of some Anti-Calvinists regarding the sovereign right of the individual, in the question of God changing the will apart from the individual's prior consent to that regeneration: "He (God) can't do that! (pause for effect) We are Americans!"In the NT, all have a choice to believe or not to believe.
No one is forced to believe against his will.
Granted. Not just admitted, as in fact I have always said things to that effect. HOWEVER, there is much to be learned by the attempt to go farther into the text than a first read. Some have even by exegesis been convinced of a contrary viewpoint they had previously disdained.The flim flam of exegesis is that for anyone to get the meaning of a verse from the verse without any input from their own mindset and unfiltered by existing ideas is on the order of Paul's conversion as a bright light and hearing GOD's voice.
Every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis, the fitting of the verse into previously accepted definitions.
Back in the historical mists of this thread, I posted my explanation of what Olson taught. He believed that the future is unknowable because it doesn't exist yet, therefore God knows everything knowable, except the future. He also taught that God does not exist with a simultaneous past present and future, because eternity is an endless series of events, one following another, therefore if God did not go from one event to another, He wouldn't be able to exist. Some people believe that the only reality is "now", but if I take a photo of "now", by the time I take the photo and look at it, the photo is no longer "now" but "then" and therefore past history because I have moved on from it to a further series of events. In actual fact, life is an endless series of choices until we reach the end of our lives. Time for us is the measurement of it based on the rotation of the earth and the orbit of the earth around the sun. Eternity is the endless series of events that are not measured, because there is no basis for measurement. In fact we won't have to measure it because there will be no limits. We measure time here because it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and so we don't want to waste what time we have in our lives. We measure our experience by how many years we have done something. We know time is running out as we get to old age and know that we don't have many years left. But in eternity measurement is not an issue, and so our time in heaven will be one joyful event after another for ever. This is one of the foundations of Open Theist teaching. In fact, there are many Bible references that support it, and that is why it is a very convincing theological opinion.
But that admits to the heresy, that God is not omniscient, and not omnipotent, and to the philosophical claim that he is not First Cause.Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
The idea that HIS omniscience is from eternity to eternity is a pagan Greek philosophical idea that crept into the Church and supported the blasphemy that GOD knew who would go to perdition before HE created them but created them anyway.
Much better is the Biblical definition:
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
This limits HIS omniscience to 'all HIS works' and it started at 'the beginning of the world.' All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees. Every reference to HIS full knowledge uses only the physical universe to define the lack of limits...
Therefore if HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend it is most probable that HE did not decree the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves.
HOW in the world do you get that? It is not gnostic, and it does not logically, nor practically, lead to docetism; nor does Calvinistic doctrine, (or any doctrine), inconsistent or heretical depending on how the individual understands it. It either is, or is not, inconsistent or heretical, regardless of how it is understood. A thing is true, or is false, without reference to anyone's opinion.The biggest issue I see with Calvinism is that it is decidedly gnostic and ultimately leads to a form of docetism in declaring that men are born sinners and Jesus did not fully take on what men are born as since he was not born a sinner. Calvinistic doctrine is either completely inconsistent or outright heretical, depending on how the individual understands it.
It's gnostic because of the "T" in Tulip that teaches of a fallen nature, and it leads to docetism for the same reason. It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different. Calvinistic doctrine requires either inconsistency in how it is applied, or it leads to heretical statements surrounding Christology and God's authorship of sin. Which of those two options the individual Calvinist goes with varies, but it cannot be consistently held and remain within the scope of orthodox Christianity.HOW in the world do you get that? It is not gnostic, and it does not logically, nor practically, lead to docetism; nor does Calvinistic doctrine, (or any doctrine), inconsistent or heretical depending on how the individual understands it. It either is, or is not, inconsistent or heretical, regardless of how it is understood. A thing is true, or is false, without reference to anyone's opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?