Was Adam Elected to Salvation or Damnation?

[Dr. Walter]

The only thing that I am not answering is your assertion that the fall must be the condition for election which is not merely unbiblical but stupid to boot! You asked if I believe Adam was elected to salvation and I said yes as election presupposes the fall of Adam. Adam was not created in a fallen state but through free choice he came into a fallen state and God "according to the purpose of election" had determined to save him out of that fallen condition.

Can't answer your question any more direct and to the point than this! What do you want?

HP: And the fundamentals are??????? Oh I forgot. If DW says it is gospel, right?

By the way. Don’t give us some philosophical answer. Either use logic that a wayfaring man though a fool might understand, matters of fact, truths of immutable justice, first truths of reason, or of course Scripture that defines for us in plain terms those fundamentals.

Then, answer directly the OP. Was Adam and eve elected to salvation or damnation, or was God just waiting around devoid of knowledge of their future choices, making God something other than omniscient? :thumbs:

Remember, we are focusing on the election of Adam and Eve, nothing else for the moment. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Since you want it in simple terms let me say it as simply as I know how.

A. God purposed in eternity to permit the fall in time and in time the fall occurred

B. God purposed in eternity to elect a people out from among those fallen mankind to salvation and in time those chosen out of fallen mankind came to salvation.

C. Adam was one of those God permitted to fall with the elective purpose to save

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I have been consistent with my position.

You are inferring that God is a monster that creates evil and wicked beings, and goes against Scripture

.

HP: You have me mixed up with the maelstrom of Calvinism both you and DW are mixed up in. I do NOT hold to unconditional election as both you DW and all of Calvinism believes. (note carefully I separate you and DW as islands to yourself, just holding to some of the same error as Calvinism holds to)

Now, tell us plainly. Did God elect Adam to salvation or damnation, or did God simply not know what He had made until Adam sinned but that would not affect his salvation according to your OSAS position,…..or was Adam not elected period, or can one that ends up one of the elect never have been one of the elect, or does God not know those that are His, or can one be created saved that God did not know that they are of his elect? If God created them saved, they must have been of the elect, and if one of the elect they must have at one time been lost according to DW, so what is it that you believe???????

Maybe you could start by giving us a list of fundamentals of what it means to be of the elect. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

DP there is no contradiction between those two statements. The contradiction is only in your own mind as you fail to understand my words.

Election "to" salvation is meaningless if there was not something to be saved from! No one needs to be elected "TO" salvation if they are already saved! Hence, election presupposes a LOST STATE out of which election brings to salvation.

However, the fall, although it is the LOST STATE out of which election brings some to salvation is NOT THE CONDITION or QUALIFICATION or basis, for God's choice to elect anyone. The basis for God's choice is grounded in the good pleasure of His own will.

Now, you are trying to be funny man and purposely pervert what I am saying but I trust the readers know the difference between a LOST STATE which election brings a person out of versus THE REASON for God choosing some over others to bring out of that LOST STATE. You are purposely trying to make them one and the same.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Yes, God predestined Adam to fall that all may be born with a curse.

Yes, God predestined all of those He foreknew in Christ before He laid the foundation of the world to be manifested throughout time and to come to their Saviour Jesus Christ…..

HP: Sorry Steaver. How could I have overlooked your post??

You are the first to actually answer directly the questions of the OP. Thank you for your honesty. :thumbs:

Steaver, would you be offended if I called you a true blue Calvinist? Regardless of what Steaver might call himself, he is at least not afraid nor does he deny the absurdity of his positions. There you have it. Here is the end of unconditional election in the raw unedited version. God is indeed the author of all sin, just as the arguments of Steaver clearly set forth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Election occurred before the world began, so whether one believes in election by prescience or by predestination, either way disproves your whole soteriology.

.

HP: You have me mixed up with the maelstrom of Calvinism both you and DW are mixed up in. I do NOT hold to unconditional election as both you DW and all of Calvinism believes. (note carefully I separate you and DW as islands to yourself, just holding to some of the same error as Calvinism holds to)

Now, tell us plainly. Did God elect Adam to salvation or damnation, or did God simply not know what He had made until Adam sinned but that would not affect his salvation according to your OSAS position,…..or was Adam not elected period, or can one that ends up one of the elect never have been one of the elect, or does God not know those that are His, or can one be created saved that God did not know that they are of his elect? If God created them saved, they must have been of the elect, and if one of the elect they must have at one time been lost according to DW, so what is it that you believe???????

Maybe you could start by giving us a list of fundamentals of what it means to be of the elect. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

:thumbs:

DW: Election "to" salvation is meaningless if there was not something to be saved from! No one needs to be elected "TO" salvation if they are already saved!

HP: Precisely as you have stated. One cannot be saved or elected to salvation if they first are not lost, therefore God must have fulfilled the ‘lost’ condition of them antecedent before they ever did good or bad…. ( to be elected in the manner you interpret election according to Romans 9) They were again lost if they were to be elected to salvation. Born lost equates to created lost which clearly implies God as the author of their lost condition and hence the author of their sin. Your position is nothing more or less than utter absurdity.

I am beginning to know and understand you and your positions real well DW.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Election occurred before the world began, so whether one believes in election by prescience or by predestination, either way disproves your whole soteriology.

HP: Focus DW, focus!!:thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is why I am not a Calvinist but a Biblicist. Unconditional election does not necessitate that God is the author of Sin as unconditional election has nothing to do with the decree for the fall but with salvation from the fallen state.

HP: Sorry Steaver. How could I have overlooked your post??

You are the first to actually answer directly the questions of the OP. Thank you for your honesty. :thumbs:

Steaver, would you be offended if I called you a true blue Calvinist? Regardless of what Steaver might call himself, he is at least not afraid nor does he deny the absurdity of his positions. There you have it. Here is the end of unconditional election in the raw unedited version. God is indeed the author of all sin, just as the arguments of Steaver clearly set forth.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Election occurred before the world began, so whether one believes in election by prescience or by predestination, either way disproves your whole soteriology.

HP: Here is the logic(?) according to DW.

• Election occurred before the world began or the first sin chosen by man.
• No one can be elected to salvation unless they have sinned.
• 3. Conclusion: God had to predestine us first to sin before the world began if He elects us to salvation before the world began, hence God is indeed is the author of all sin for He of necessity had to predestined us to be in need of His election.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 9:11 does not deal with the relationship of the fall of man with the decree of election. Romans 9:11 deals with the POST-birth actions of Jacob, thus denying that POST-birth actions were the basis for Jacob's election.

Let me break this down so you can understand. In Romans 9:11 Paul is merely saying that FUTURE post-birth actions by Jacob, whether good or evil were not the basis for God's choice of Jacob as God's purpose for choosing Jacob went further back than his POST-birth actions, further back then the fall of Adam, all the way back to the eternal purpose of grace.

What you are inferring from Romans 9:11 is so rediculous it is hard to type this with a straight face. Being born a sinner in the year 2000 B.C. is not equated to being created a sinner!!!! This is the stupid logic that messes your mind up. God never created sinners - sin was Adam's CHOICE and Jacob's birth as a sinner was due to his RELATIONSHIP to Adam. Have you never read Romans 5:17-19????

17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Nowhere in this text do we ever read being "born a sinner" is equal to being "created a sinner." You talk abou absurdity, you take the cake!

:thumbs:

HP: Precisely as you have stated. One cannot be saved or elected to salvation if they first are not lost, therefore God must have fulfilled the ‘lost’ condition of them antecedent before they ever did good or bad…. ( to be elected in the manner you interpret election according to Romans 9) They were again lost if they were to be elected to salvation. Born lost equates to created lost which clearly implies God as the author of their lost condition and hence the author of their sin. Your position is nothing more or less than utter absurdity.

I am beginning to know and understand you and your positions real well DW.

 

[Jedi Knight]

That is why I am not a Calvinist but a Biblicist.

FOCUS HP and you might learn something instead of the name calling.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: sin was Adam's CHOICE

HP: Are you telling me that something that is foreknown by God may or not come to pass????? You need to get your stories straight. If election determines the outcome and that what comes to pass is necessitated by such foreknowledge ( remember that comment you like to make about ‘or God is a liar????’) sin if foreknown would be just as necessitated as the elect are to salvation according to you. You can’t have it both ways DW. If foreknowledge necessitates the outcome, it necessitates sin as well as the election to salvation you call unconditional election…. To which I respond you also are necessitated to believe in unconditional sin( THE HEART AND SOUL OF DOUBLE PREDESTINATION) which by the way leaves ALL ‘choice’ out of the picture. You can save your lip service about ‘choice’ for someone unable to reason through your necessitated fallacies. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

It should be pointed out that when the Paul pointed out that God has the right to do with sinners as He wills, rather to have mercy or leave to the hardening process of sin, Paul anticipates the objection:

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

The objector tries to deny God's right to judge sin because in essence the objector is charging the sin to God's will since "whom he WILL he hardeneth."

What is Paul's response?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Man does not like this doctrine because it has nothing good to say about man. Basically, it says man deserves nothing but God's wrath and therefore God has the right to do with fallen man whatsoever he wills.

However, verse 22 is Paul's specific answer to the charge concerning "whom He WILL He hardeneth."

1. God has a right to show his wrath. God does not have a right to show wrath to unfallen man as there is no lawful sentence to execute upon unfallen man. But God has the right to show his wrath upon whatever portion of fallen man He desires.

2. God does not display his wrath like an angry child in retaliation but is even merciful to those he hardenths by "endureth with much longsuffering" their wickedness

How does God harden sinners? The best illustration I have ever read is the illustration of the Sunshine on butter and clay. The same sunshine that melts the butter hardens the clay. Man's fallen nature is at enmity with God and therefore exposure to God hardens sinners naturally because of their nature just as the nature of the clay hardens with exposure to sunlight.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: FOCUS HP and you might learn something instead of the name calling.

HP: First, relating common thread of thought between Calvinism and some of those on this list is not name calling in the least. If you desire to chastise one for name calling, let’s see….

What was the direct name calling by DHK concerning myself?? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Who said election determined the outcome of anyone but the elect???? Who said that election determined choice to sin? Who said that election determined sin?????? I have never said any such thing!! That has been your UNFOUNDED accusation not mine.

My position has always been that prescience reveals future reality but does not mandate it. Election has nothing to do with Adam's choice to sin! Election has to do with Adam's choice to repent and believe the gospel!!!

You simply don't know what you are talking about and you certainly are not representing anything I have said or ever will say. You are intentionally perverting my position as you are fighting some invisible straw man you call "Calvin."

Foreknowledge defined as precisence reveals future events but never mandates them. Election according to prescience merely brings God's choice in alignment with foreseen human choice.

Foreknowledge defined as revelation of God's eternal purpose. Election according foreknowledge of God's eternal purpose has nothing to do whatsoever with the fall, Adam's choice to sin or anything other than bringing Adam "to" salvation.

You don't even understand or grasp what unconditional election has reference to and what it does not have reference to. I challenge you to go throug the scriptures and find me one verse that teaches election in regard to salvation has anything to do with the fall, Adam's choice to sin, God's purpose for permitting sin or anything else!

If you are going to teach us about unconditional election you first need to know what it is and what it isn't. Even Calvin can help you see the rediculous applications you are making of election.

HP: Are you telling me that something that is foreknown by God may or not come to pass????? You need to get your stories straight. If election determines the outcome and that what comes to pass is necessitated by such foreknowledge ( remember that comment you like to make about ‘or God is a liar????’) sin if foreknown would be just as necessitated as the elect are to salvation according to you. You can’t have it both ways DW. If foreknowledge necessitates the outcome, it necessitates sin as well as the election to salvation you call unconditional election…. To which I respond you also are necessitated to believe in unconditional sin( THE HEART AND SOUL OF DOUBLE PREDESTINATION) which by the way leaves ALL ‘choice’ out of the picture. You can save your lip service about ‘choice’ for someone unable to reason through your necessitated fallacies. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

.

HP: You have me mixed up with the maelstrom of Calvinism both you and DW are mixed up in. I do NOT hold to unconditional election as both you DW and all of Calvinism believes. (note carefully I separate you and DW as islands to yourself, just holding to some of the same error as Calvinism holds to)

I know you don't hold to the truth of unconditional election. I usually speak of unconditional salvation. The Bible speaks of salvation as the free gift of God; no free gift has conditions attached.

Now, tell us plainly. Did God elect Adam to salvation or damnation, or did God simply not know what He had made until Adam sinned but that would not affect his salvation according to your OSAS position,…..or was Adam not elected period,

Adam was created!
You infer in an impotent God who has no intelligence. You ought to be ashamed. Are you a tree hugger?? Jer.10:2ff

or can one that ends up one of the elect never have been one of the elect, or does God not know those that are His,

Does God know them that are His? What does the Bible say?
Did I know that I would be saved during the first 20 years of my life before I was saved? God knew, but I didn't.

or can one be created saved that God did not know that they are of his elect?

Je comprend Anglais, mais???
God created Adam. All things that God created were "very good." In fact they were perfect. Comprenez vous?

If God created them saved, they must have been of the elect, and if one of the elect they must have at one time been lost according to DW, so what is it that you believe???????

According to your logic perhaps God was lost in eternity past in order to become perfectly holy as he is now. Does something have to be inherently evil in order to become inherently good?

 

[steaver]

HP: Sorry Steaver. How could I have overlooked your post??

You are the first to actually answer directly the questions of the OP. Thank you for your honesty. :thumbs:

Steaver, would you be offended if I called you a true blue Calvinist? Regardless of what Steaver might call himself, he is at least not afraid nor does he deny the absurdity of his positions. There you have it. Here is the end of unconditional election in the raw unedited version. God is indeed the author of all sin, just as the arguments of Steaver clearly set forth.

I'm not offended brother. If it makes you feel good, go ahead. I never actually took the time to study TULIP, but I do know that I don't believe one is born of God prior to calling on the name of Jesus Christ. So that might disqualify me from "true blue".

Now, could you define what you mean when you say "author of sin"?

God created satan, does this make God the "author of evil"?

Just wondering how you are thinking when you say "author of sin". God did not "make" Adam sin, but God did set Adam up to fail. Does this make God the "author of sin"? This depends on your definition of being a author.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think Steaver is right! HP if you want to debate me concerning what I believe, what about starting with our own definitions before ascribing to us things we have not said or did not mean to be understood the way you are using things.

Let's ratchet down this discussion and begin by defining things and make sure we both understand each other.:thumbs:

I'm not offended brother. If it makes you feel good, go ahead. I never actually took the time to study TULIP, but I do know that I don't believe one is born of God prior to calling on the name of Jesus Christ. So that might disqualify me from "true blue".

Now, could you define what you mean when you say "author of sin"?

God created satan, does this make God the "author of evil"?

Just wondering how you are thinking when you say "author of sin". God did not "make" Adam sin, but God did set Adam up to fail. Does this make God the "author of sin"? This depends on your definition of being a author.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I'm not offended brother. If it makes you feel good, go ahead.

HP: It does not make me feel good. Rather than to go through TULIP at every juncture to make a point, it allows the mind to focus on that system of thought quickly and to recognize like thoughts for what they are. You seem to at least be consistent with the points of tulip. I see DW and DHK trying to distance themselves from that which they see as ‘ignorant’ or in error while holding to the very points that necessitate such error, case in point, unconditional election.

Steaver: I never actually took the time to study TULIP, but I do know that I don't believe one is born of God prior to calling on the name of Jesus Christ. So that might disqualify me from "true blue".

HP: You have either read or set under the teachings of someone that understood the points and so called ‘iron clad logic’ of that system,’ cognizant of it or not.

Steaver; Now, could you define what you mean when you say "author of sin"?

HP: I use ‘author of’ as identical with the ‘first cause of.’ Hope that helps. Whoever is the ’first cause’ of something’ is the author of it.

Steaver: God created satan, does this make God the "author of evil"?

HP: No, because God created him as God creates all sentient moral beings, with the freedom and capacity to be the first cause of their moral intents. The best evidence of this is the clear fact that God holds man accountable for their intents and punishes or praises men accordingly.

Steaver: Just wondering how you are thinking when you say "author of sin". God did not "make" Adam sin, but God did set Adam up to fail.

HP: I can appreciate that you say God did not make Adam sin, but is that consistent with the position you took in your other response to my question? I would not believe so.

Steaver: Yes, God predestined Adam to fall that all may be born with a curse.