Sovereignity of God part deux!!

[convicted1]

I wanted to respond to Bro. Archangel's response to me in the other thread but that was was closed out :BangHead:!! So I thought I'd start anutter one for us to hash, slash, dash, clash, rehash, etc.

Now on to the "goodies!! LOL

Willis,

You are still arguing a neutrality of sorts. From the instant of our conception our place in Hell is sealed (so to speak). God's adopting intervention must take place to, as it were, reset the default for His children.

Bro Archangel,

With all due respect, I am not arguing any neutrality of any sort. When we are born, our soul is alive unto God, and then when sin is accounted unto us, we then "fall". It's from this point forward we need to be saved. Do you think a 6 month old baby is in need of saving? How can that 6 month old even make a "statement of faith"? That baby can't even give thought of "good or bad". I was about two before I even knew I existed. So, no, our place in hell isn't sealed from birth, but when we know God as God and glorify Him not as God.

The problem here is two fold: 1. A translation issue. "Gave them up" is probably not the best understanding (even my beloved ESV translates it this way). The idea is better said "giving them over" So in the context of Romans 1, Paul is saying people are doing the sinful things in v. 24 and following because God has already given them up. These sinful things do not bring about the giving up. To put it another way, when one commits these sinful things it is evidence of non-belief.

Whether it states it "gave them up" or "giving them over" you still come to the same conclusion....He "gave them up", or better yet, He "turned loose the reins" on them and let them have their way.

The greek word for "gave" that is found in Rom. 1:24 and 1:26:

paradidōmi 3860 Strong's

1) to give into the hands (of another)

2) to give over into (one's) power or use

a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage

b) to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death

c) to deliver up treacherously

1) by betrayal to cause one to be taken

2) to deliver one to be taught, moulded

3) to commit, to commend

4) to deliver verbally

a) commands, rites

b) to deliver by narrating, to report

5) to permit allow

a) when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness permits

b) gives itself up, presents itself

The greek for for "them"

autos 846 Greek

1) himself, herself, themselves, itself

2) he, she, it

3) the same

The same word used for "gave" is oddly enough, used for the word "up".

So I think that any way you cut it, or slice it, the KJV and ESV have it right!! :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:????

I will do the rest of your response in the next post.

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[convicted1]

Now to address the rest of your response, Bro. Archangel!!

2.) "Retain God in their knowledge" is a very problematic translation. The word retain likely comes from the Greek exo, here using the infinitive "To have." Also, knowledge is too soft of a word. The word epignosis is much stronger than knowledge. Epignosis refers to knowledge in and through participation. So, a better understanding is "to have knowledge through participation in." So, the implication here is that these people already wanted nothing to do with God. And, because of that, He gave them over and as a result, they commit heinous sins.

I do think that when we were sinners, we did retain a certain amount of "knowledge" in regards to their being a God. Until God began drawing us, we couldn't be saved. Here is the greek word for "knowledge" according to Strong's.

epignōsis Strong's 1922

1) precise and correct knowledge

a) used in the NT of the knowledge of things ethical and divine


Now here is the greek word for "retain".

echō Strong's 1922

1) to have, i.e. to hold

a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as

2) to have i.e. own, possess

a) external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.

b) used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship

3) to hold one's self or find one's self so and so, to be in such or such a condition

4) to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to

a) to be closely joined to a person or a thing

This is a very problematic statement. If you follow your statement through it means that the worst thing we can do for someone is share the Gospel with them, because it means their innocence will be lost and they will now be held accountable, and if they keep rejecting the Gospel they will go to Hell.

No, Bro. Archangel, the best thing we can do is show them the Gospel. Jesus show the Pharisees and Saducees the Gospel by preaching and teaching it, by the MANY miracles that they saw HIM do, and THEY STILL CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE HIM!! Here is a passage to prove this statement.

John 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

The Gospel does two things: it either convicts the sinner, or will drive them away. If they hear it and are saved, their seat in heaven is sealed; if they turn it away, and die lost, their seat in hell is sealed. The only way any of us go to hell is by us rejecting Jesus Christ, which is THE GOSPEL!!

Ever since Adam and Eve sinned, mankind as a whole has been doing what Romans 1 describes--ignoring God, making idols out of themselves and for themselves. As a result of mankind's inherent God-less-ness, God gives mankind over to their inherent sinful passions. I, along with other reformers, suggest this is God's removal of common grace.

The only thing that Adam's fall guaranteed me is this: I would die the physical death. My sins, and MY SINS ALONE is what causes me to die "spiritually". Please read EZEK. 18:4,20 and you will see what I mean by this statement. I know that you see things differently than I do, and I still love you anyways!! But, love THRUSTED UPON SOMEONE isn't true love. If you hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to tell you "I love you", what is going to be their response? God is sovereign of His plan, meaning that His Son was to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He did His part by offering His Son up to that determinate counsel. When He knocks, WE had to open the door. God does not make us love Him, because He could make the stones cry out if He wanted to. He wants our praises, yes, but not praises that He forced us to make!! I love you Bro. Archangel. I have enjoyed our civil discussion. Let's keep this ball rolling. :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:???

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[quantumfaith]

I wanted to respond to Bro. Archangel's response to me in the other thread but that was was closed out :BangHead:!! So I thought I'd start anutter one for us to hash, slash, dash, clash, rehash, etc.

Now on to the "goodies!! LOL



Bro Archangel,

With all due respect, I am not arguing any neutrality of any sort. When we are born, our soul is alive unto God, and then when sin is accounted unto us, we then "fall". It's from this point forward we need to be saved. Do you think a 6 month old baby is in need of saving? How can that 6 month old even make a "statement of faith"? That baby can't even give thought of "good or bad". I was about two before I even knew I existed. So, no, our place in hell isn't sealed from birth, but when we know God as God and glorify Him not as God.



Whether it states it "gave them up" or "giving them over" you still come to the same conclusion....He "gave them up", or better yet, He "turned loose the reins" on them and let them have their way.

The greek word for "gave" that is found in Rom. 1:24 and 1:26:

paradidōmi 3860 Strong's

1) to give into the hands (of another)

2) to give over into (one's) power or use

a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage

b) to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death

c) to deliver up treacherously

1) by betrayal to cause one to be taken

2) to deliver one to be taught, moulded

3) to commit, to commend

4) to deliver verbally

a) commands, rites

b) to deliver by narrating, to report

5) to permit allow

a) when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness permits

b) gives itself up, presents itself

The greek for for "them"

autos 846 Greek

1) himself, herself, themselves, itself

2) he, she, it

3) the same

The same word used for "gave" is oddly enough, used for the word "up".

So I think that any way you cut it, or slice it, the KJV and ESV have it right!! :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:????

I will do the rest of your response in the next post.

i am I am's!!

Willis

Thanks so much for the very cogent thinking on "gave them up"...

 

[slave 4 Christ]

With all due respect, I am not arguing any neutrality of any sort. When we are born, our soul is alive unto God, and then when sin is accounted unto us, we then "fall". It's from this point forward we need to be saved. Do you think a 6 month old baby is in need of saving? How can that 6 month old even make a "statement of faith"? That baby can't even give thought of "good or bad". I was about two before I even knew I existed. So, no, our place in hell isn't sealed from birth, but when we know God as God and glorify Him not as God.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

At what point is sin accounted to a person?
Must a person be conscious of sin before it becomes sin?
Must a person know "God as God", then fail to glorify Him as such, before the person is condemned?

Romans 1 is not teaching the fall of "a" man, but teaching the fall of man.

This portion of Scripture is revealing the utter and extreme depravity of mankind, from the time when men knew God (ie. Noah's time) unto this very hour.

Romans 3:9, proves all are under sin and the result is Romans 3:23 all have sinned.

Such a short statement can not be properly construed as what one in fact believes, however the above quote seems to suggest semi-pelagianism.

(This is taken from Theopedia):

Semi-Pelagianism, a moderated form of Pelagianism, taught that man has retained the ability to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God's grace. Pelagianism denied any real effect of original sin on human nature. Semi-Pelagianism, admitted that man's nature was "injured" by original sin, but maintained that man still has free will and the ability to cooperate with God's grace in the salvation process.
The word appears to have been coined between 1590 and 1600 in connection with Molina's doctrine of grace, in which opponents believed they saw a close resemblance to the heresy of the monks of Southern Gaul at Marseille in the fifth century, which they termed Semi-Pelagianism. This Semi-Pelagian [/B]teaching, which aimed at a compromise between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, was condemned as heresy at the second Council of Orange in A.D. 529 after disputes extending over more than a hundred years.....

....Semi-Pelagianism settled for the following positions:
Human nature is neither good nor bad, but injured. Just as an injured person can't quite do whatever he'd like to do, so likewise because of original sin, man's moral abilities became restricted. His free will remained, but was weakened by the Fall. Man, then, can still decide to seek and receive help.

Man's need for grace: Although Semi-Pelagianism believes in man's need for God's grace (for man is too weak to help himself), man by his own free will is able to decide whether he wants God's grace. Whereas Pelagius taught that salvation is totally man's own doing, and Augustine taught that salvation is totally from God, Semi-Pelagianism teaches that salvation is a combination of the efforts of both man and God. According to Semi-Pelagianism, salvation is accomplished when man decides to co-operate with God and accepts the grace God offers him. This is often viewed as a synergistic concept of salvation.

God's sovereignty: Semi-Pelagianism essentially maintains that the sovereignty of God is limited by man's decision to co-operate with God or not. God's gospel of salvation in Christ can be rejected by man and so return to God empty. Though God may wish to save someone, He can only do so if that person chooses to accept it and cooperate with grace.
Over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian doctrine (although couched in terms of grace) became the dominant theological perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, and essentially remains so today.

 

[Luke2427]

At what point is sin accounted to a person?
Must a person be conscious of sin before it becomes sin?
Must a person know "God as God", then fail to glorify Him as such, before the person is condemned?

Romans 1 is not teaching the fall of "a" man, but teaching the fall of man.

This portion of Scripture is revealing the utter and extreme depravity of mankind, from the time when men knew God (ie. Noah's time) unto this very hour.

Romans 3:9, proves all are under sin and the result is Romans 3:23 all have sinned.

Such a short statement can not be properly construed as what one in fact believes, however the above quote seems to suggest semi-pelagianism.

(This is taken from Theopedia):

Semi-Pelagianism, a moderated form of Pelagianism, taught that man has retained the ability to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God's grace. Pelagianism denied any real effect of original sin on human nature. Semi-Pelagianism, admitted that man's nature was "injured" by original sin, but maintained that man still has free will and the ability to cooperate with God's grace in the salvation process.
The word appears to have been coined between 1590 and 1600 in connection with Molina's doctrine of grace, in which opponents believed they saw a close resemblance to the heresy of the monks of Southern Gaul at Marseille in the fifth century, which they termed Semi-Pelagianism. This Semi-Pelagian [/B]teaching, which aimed at a compromise between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, was condemned as heresy at the second Council of Orange in A.D. 529 after disputes extending over more than a hundred years.....

....Semi-Pelagianism settled for the following positions:
Human nature is neither good nor bad, but injured. Just as an injured person can't quite do whatever he'd like to do, so likewise because of original sin, man's moral abilities became restricted. His free will remained, but was weakened by the Fall. Man, then, can still decide to seek and receive help.

Man's need for grace: Although Semi-Pelagianism believes in man's need for God's grace (for man is too weak to help himself), man by his own free will is able to decide whether he wants God's grace. Whereas Pelagius taught that salvation is totally man's own doing, and Augustine taught that salvation is totally from God, Semi-Pelagianism teaches that salvation is a combination of the efforts of both man and God. According to Semi-Pelagianism, salvation is accomplished when man decides to co-operate with God and accepts the grace God offers him. This is often viewed as a synergistic concept of salvation.

God's sovereignty: Semi-Pelagianism essentially maintains that the sovereignty of God is limited by man's decision to co-operate with God or not. God's gospel of salvation in Christ can be rejected by man and so return to God empty. Though God may wish to save someone, He can only do so if that person chooses to accept it and cooperate with grace.
Over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian doctrine (although couched in terms of grace) became the dominant theological perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, and essentially remains so today.

You are right- it is semi-pelagianism, at least as far as that particular position goes.

It is Arminian- though what some on here argue is that they are NOT Arminians because they believe eternal security.

But the fact that their theology is not as consistent as that of the Remonstrants and differs in that one point does not negate their Arminianism.

No more than one not believing in transubstantiation would cause him NOT to be a Lutheran. If he is a Lutheran on most other points, he is a Lutheran.

The only way to avoid this is if there is ANOTHER theological system which embraces that slight difference. Then one could call himself by the name of that system.

Otherwise it is right to label him as that which most closely defines him.

The non-reformed on here are BASICALLY Arminian and semi-pelagian.

 

[convicted1]

Such a short statement can not be properly construed as what one in fact believes, however the above quote seems to suggest semi-pelagianism.

Brother, with all due respect, I know nothing about Pelagianism or even "semi". The point I am trying to make is that there are TWO MEN(used for emphasis and not yelling) that the bible talks about, the "inner" and "outer" man. The outer man is earthly, and came from the ground, and is going to die because of Adam's sin. The inner man comes from God Almighty and it dies when it recognizes God as God and glorifies Him not as God. That is the point I make. In Adam, all die, is correct. This pertains to our flesh, not our soul.

God's sovereignty: Semi-Pelagianism essentially maintains that the sovereignty of God is limited by man's decision to co-operate with God or not. God's gospel of salvation in Christ can be rejected by man and so return to God empty. Though God may wish to save someone, He can only do so if that person chooses to accept it and cooperate with grace.

I may have worded this differently. What I am trying to get at is this: God calls and knocks on the door, its up to man to open the door. God will not break that door down and come in a take up His abode. I know that my DoG Brethern believe that God knock only on the heart of the elect, and they will open up(or that's what I think, but if I am wrong, I am sorry). I believe that Grace is offered to all and not just some. That is why I believe some will reject God. I believe that God will call ALL MEN and save those who open the door. Do you understand where I am coming from??

At what point is sin accounted to a person?
Must a person be conscious of sin before it becomes sin?
Must a person know "God as God", then fail to glorify Him as such, before the person is condemned?

Apostle Paul states this in Romans 7:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

So here Paul plainly states that he was alive once without the law, the commandment came sin revived and he died.

What law was Apostle Paul talking about?

Rom. 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

I believe that a baby is born "not guilty" before God. The curse of Adam is upon their flesh, meaning they start "dying" the very instant they start "living". That is the one thing guaranteed to us by Adam's fall. When God makes known unto us that we are lost and need of being saved, then we are held accountable unto Him, and not before. I believe this with all my heart. I hope this clears up the muddy water some. I love you!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[The Archangel]

Brother, with all due respect, I know nothing about Pelagianism or even "semi". The point I am trying to make is that there are TWO MEN(used for emphasis and not yelling) that the bible talks about, the "inner" and "outer" man. The outer man is earthly, and came from the ground, and is going to die because of Adam's sin. The inner man comes from God Almighty and it dies when it recognizes God as God and glorifies Him not as God. That is the point I make. In Adam, all die, is correct. This pertains to our flesh, not our soul.

Friend,

I am working on responding to the post that opened this sequel thread. However, I saw this response you made and I had to bring your attention to it.

I fear that you are in peril of great doctrinal error in this line of thinking. What you have described here is basically the position of Gnosticism (which was rampant in the first century and later). Gnosticism, basically, theorized that the soul was good and the flesh was bad.

In reality, the human being is not able to be bifurcated into two elements (or three if one is a trichotomist. I am a dichotomist). In any event, it is plainly visible that a physical impairment, such as mental retardation, etc., can and does affect the whole person, not just the physical. It is also plainly visible that a soul problem (or, better, a heart problem) affects the physical. Jesus Himself said "out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person..." (Matthew 15:19-20) So the spiritual does impact the whole person, not just the spiritual.

I would strongly encourage you to rethink this line of thinking. It will lead you into grave error. And, by the way, that error has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism.

The Archangel

 

[zrs6v4]

Willis, I grabbed a couple of statements you made throughout and responded to them below because I think they are important to get correct.

In Adam, all die, is correct. This pertains to our flesh, not our soul.

Romans 5:14, "...death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam who was a type of Him who was to come." And the next sentence "But the free gift is not like the transgression." Paul is talking here about sin and spiritual death. Adam was a Christ type. Why? Because He brought spiritual death into the world and Christ came in and took it away. Paul is not speaking of only physical death. He's dealing with sin, spiritual death, and Gospel.

When we are born, our soul is alive unto God, and then when sin is accounted unto us, we then "fall". It's from this point forward we need to be saved. Do you think a 6 month old baby is in need of saving? How can that 6 month old even make a "statement of faith"? That baby can't even give thought of "good or bad". I was about two before I even knew I existed. So, no, our place in hell isn't sealed from birth, but when we know God as God and glorify Him not as God.

The Fall happened in Adam, babies are a different topic. In my opinion, let God deal with those details He hasn't laid out clearly for us to know. Stick with the topic of the Fall and inherited sin and guilt.

The Gospel does two things: it either convicts the sinner, or will drive them away. If they hear it and are saved, their seat in heaven is sealed; if they turn it away, and die lost, their seat in hell is sealed. The only way any of us go to hell is by us rejecting Jesus Christ, which is THE GOSPEL!!

Let me give a small example. Lets pretend there is a man here on earth that raped, murdered, and robbed 100 banks. This same man gets caught with irrefutable evidence. Does the judge send him to punishment because he rejected pardon (if possible) or because of his offenses? My point is that God doesn't send people to hell fro rejecting forgiveness. He sends people to hell because they are wicked sinners who have made the man I just mentioned look like an angel. I believe the biggest problem today is a low view of our sin against God. If we understood it we would beg for punishment...

He wants our praises, yes, but not praises that He forced us to make!!

Let me ask you this as a response to the above statement I quoted. Do you believe in eternal security? If so how can God bring all of His elect to perseverance to the end? Does God force them to persevere to the end? Did not Jesus say that those who persevere to the end will be saved? My point is that generally speaking, the same way God causes us Christians to not endure to the end is the same way He brings us to Himself to begin with. Is He not the author and finisher of our faith? Does not Jesus raise all that the Father gives Him on the last day? Nobody ever argues that God forces people against their will. What we say, rightly, is that God makes us willing by the work of the Holy Spirit. He does it effectually by conquering the bondage of sin our flesh is bound to from birth. It is grace that brings us to God and grace that carries us home. We were saved and are being saved daily by God's grace (don't confuse that with justification as a one time event).

 

[convicted1]

Friend,

I am working on responding to the post that opened this sequel thread. However, I saw this response you made and I had to bring your attention to it.

I fear that you are in peril of great doctrinal error in this line of thinking. What you have described here is basically the position of Gnosticism (which was rampant in the first century and later). Gnosticism, basically, theorized that the soul was good and the flesh was bad.

In reality, the human being is not able to be bifurcated into two elements (or three if one is a trichotomist. I am a dichotomist). In any event, it is plainly visible that a physical impairment, such as mental retardation, etc., can and does affect the whole person, not just the physical. It is also plainly visible that a soul problem (or, better, a heart problem) affects the physical. Jesus Himself said "out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person..." (Matthew 15:19-20) So the spiritual does impact the whole person, not just the spiritual.

I would strongly encourage you to rethink this line of thinking. It will lead you into grave error. And, by the way, that error has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism.

The Archangel

Wow, and now I am a "borderline" Gnostic?? Again, wow!!

The point I am trying to make is this, Brother, when we were born into this world, our soul was alive unto God, but our flesh is cursed by Adam's fall, and it will die. When we come to "know" God as God(when He makes Himself known unto us by showing us in our lost condition) we then die spiritually. This death of the soul(or spirit{I am a believer that man is body/soul, not body/soul/spirit}) is not the same as when we die physically. Physical death is when our soul gets seperated from our body, and spiritual death comes when our soul is seperated from God. No where have I even alluded to an "imperfect god" that the Gnostics hold to. Its just that I believe we are born alive unto God, and you and the DoG believe that we are born "dead".

Gal.4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Here's the greek word for redeem used in Gal.4:5

exagorazō Strong's 1805

1) to redeem

a) by payment of a price to recover from the power of another, to ransom, buy off

b) metaph. of Christ freeing the elect from the dominion of the Mosaic Law at the price of his vicarious death

2) to buy up, to buy up for one's self, for one's use

a) to make wise and sacred use of every opportunity for doing good, so that zeal and well doing are as it were the purchase money by which we make the time our own


So to redeem is to "re"cover something by implication.

Ezek. 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.


ESV:4Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mineE) the soul who sins shall die.

NIV:4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son— both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

YLT:4Lo, all the souls are Mine, As the soul of the father, So also the soul of the son -- they are Mine, The soul that is sinning -- it doth die.

ASV: 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Hebrew word for soul: nephesh Strong's 5315

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion

a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man

b) living being

c) living being (with life in the blood)

d) the man himself, self, person or individual

e) seat of the appetites

f) seat of emotions and passions

g) activity of mind

1) dubious

h) activity of the will

1) dubious

i) activity of the character

1) dubious

So Christ redeemed us(meaning to buyback) us from the curse of the Law. Now, what did all this have to do with the OP??? LOL!!

The "Sovereignness" of God is His plan of salvation, meaning that Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, would be that sacrificial Lamb on the cross at Calvary. In this "sovereignness" He gives us the free will to choose either good or bad, and we will reap what we sow for it.

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Brother, with all due respect, I know nothing about Pelagianism or even "semi". The point I am trying to make is that there are TWO MEN(used for emphasis and not yelling) that the bible talks about, the "inner" and "outer" man. The outer man is earthly, and came from the ground, and is going to die because of Adam's sin. The inner man comes from God Almighty and it dies when it recognizes God as God and glorifies Him not as God. That is the point I make. In Adam, all die, is correct. This pertains to our flesh, not our soul.

I may have worded this differently. What I am trying to get at is this: God calls and knocks on the door, its up to man to open the door. God will not break that door down and come in a take up His abode. I know that my DoG Brethern believe that God knock only on the heart of the elect, and they will open up(or that's what I think, but if I am wrong, I am sorry). I believe that Grace is offered to all and not just some. That is why I believe some will reject God. I believe that God will call ALL MEN and save those who open the door. Do you understand where I am coming from??



Apostle Paul states this in Romans 7:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

So here Paul plainly states that he was alive once without the law, the commandment came sin revived and he died.

What law was Apostle Paul talking about?

Rom. 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

I believe that a baby is born "not guilty" before God. The curse of Adam is upon their flesh, meaning they start "dying" the very instant they start "living". That is the one thing guaranteed to us by Adam's fall. When God makes known unto us that we are lost and need of being saved, then we are held accountable unto Him, and not before. I believe this with all my heart. I hope this clears up the muddy water some. I love you!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

Willis, please understand these are tremendous claims, therefore when you say "I believe" it must be proved scripturally.

Prove, from scripture, that Adam's sin only causes physical death.

Can the "inner" man(as you define him) recognize God and then glorify Him?

You mis-interpret Romans 7

Paul is not establishing that spiritual life existed for him until the commandment came. But rather he was alive (false assumption) in the law as a Jewish man.
The law was to him, as a Jewish man, ordained unto life.
His "life" was in his law keeping ability as a Jew.
He was counting on law keeping to save himself.

Then, he says, the reality of the law became apparent.
God's purpose for His law is truly understood by Paul, and he died to his self-righteous system.

 

[convicted1]

First off, thanks for taking the time to post on this thread!! :thumbs:

Now on to what you posted.

Romans 5:14, "...death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam who was a type of Him who was to come." And the next sentence "But the free gift is not like the transgression." Paul is talking here about sin and spiritual death. Adam was a Christ type. Why? Because He brought spiritual death into the world and Christ came in and took it away. Paul is not speaking of only physical death. He's dealing with sin, spiritual death, and Gospel.

I bolded the last sentence in this quote to address it. I agree with everything you posted here, but not the context into which you put it. You place the spiritual death from birth(meaning babies that die are doomed to hell because they can not make a "statement of faith", neither place their faith in God), whereas I place the spiritual death from the time God shows them that they are sinners in need of a saviour. That is the diffence between you and I in this regards. Apostle Paul stated "he was alive once with the law.........."

The Fall happened in Adam, babies are a different topic. In my opinion, let God deal with those details He hasn't laid out clearly for us to know. Stick with the topic of the Fall and inherited sin and guilt.

How are baies a different topic? They are human such as we are. If they die spiritually dead(which means seperated from God), then their fate is already laid out. To me, a baby is just like Adam and Eve in the Garden pre-fall. When they were little, they ran around naked every chance they got....sound familiar?? Later on, they realized that when they were naked, they dressed themselves before anyone else could see their nakedness.....sound familiar?? Its only when God shows them that they are "naked" before Him, that they/we are held accountable to Him for the sins which we committed.

Do you believe in eternal security?

You betcha!! :thumbs: I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto His hands, against that day!!

Let me give a small example. Lets pretend there is a man here on earth that raped, murdered, and robbed 100 banks. This same man gets caught with irrefutable evidence. Does the judge send him to punishment because he rejected pardon (if possible) or because of his offenses? My point is that God doesn't send people to hell fro rejecting forgiveness. He sends people to hell because they are wicked sinners who have made the man I just mentioned look like an angel. I believe the biggest problem today is a low view of our sin against God. If we understood it we would beg for punishment...

Aye, but here's what wrong with using this for an example. No one goes to jail before having a trial, unless they plead guilty(for a lesser charge, or maybe they felt remorseful afterwards and are willing to take their "comeuppance"). But the thing is, they were made an offer to accept something, eventhough they were guilty. The DoG'ers don't believe the ones that end up end hell will get that offer, they just walk around in their "guilty" state and go straight to the electric chair and "ZAP"...so I think that this was a bad analogy for your cause.

If so how can God bring all of His elect to perseverance to the end?

This one is easy, "The steps of a righteous man are ordered of the Lord"!

It is grace that brings us to God and grace that carries us home. We were saved and are being saved daily by God's grace (don't confuse that with justification as a one time event).

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I just believe that grace will be offered to all, and not some, You believe that grace is offered to the elect only, and not all. I don't know what you mean by "being saved daily"?? I am saved(past tense), and will remained saved forever, solely by His grace. Please elaborate some on this "being saved daily", please?

I pray that you can at least see where I am coming from(even if you don't agree with that stance). I love you Brother!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[convicted1]

Let me give a small example. Lets pretend there is a man here on earth that raped, murdered, and robbed 100 banks. This same man gets caught with irrefutable evidence. Does the judge send him to punishment because he rejected pardon (if possible) or because of his offenses? My point is that God doesn't send people to hell fro rejecting forgiveness. He sends people to hell because they are wicked sinners who have made the man I just mentioned look like an angel. I believe the biggest problem today is a low view of our sin against God. If we understood it we would beg for punishment...

Dan. 5:22 And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this;

23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:

24 Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.

25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.

31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

Now, I want to address three words in this passgae, "weighed", "balances", and "wanting".

Weighed: tĕqal(Aramaic) Strong's 8625

1) to weigh

a) (P'il) to be weighed

2) tekel, shekel

a) (P'al) tekel - a unit of weight, shekel

Balances: mo'zen(Aramaic) Strong's 3977

1) scale, balance

Wanting: chacciyr (Aramaic) Strong's 2627

1) lacking, wanting, deficient


So, by implication, Belshazzar(sp?) was weighed in the balance and was "lacking". Daniel showed him this, and he, for whatever reason, died an unchanged man. So even Belshazzar was given a "trial" and he died guilty.

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[zrs6v4]

Willis, I will respond after work

 

[The Archangel]

Wow, and now I am a "borderline" Gnostic?? Again, wow!!

The point I am trying to make is this, Brother, when we were born into this world, our soul was alive unto God, but our flesh is cursed by Adam's fall, and it will die. When we come to "know" God as God(when He makes Himself known unto us by showing us in our lost condition) we then die spiritually. This death of the soul(or spirit{I am a believer that man is body/soul, not body/soul/spirit}) is not the same as when we die physically. Physical death is when our soul gets seperated from our body, and spiritual death comes when our soul is seperated from God. No where have I even alluded to an "imperfect god" that the Gnostics hold to. Its just that I believe we are born alive unto God, and you and the DoG believe that we are born "dead".

I understand the point you are trying to make and it is a wrong point. No Arminian theology I am aware of even comes close to suggesting what you are suggesting.

As a result of the fall, the whole person (physical and spiritual) was hopelessly corrupted.

What is more (and this will probably be dealt with in the afore-promised response) that this whole line of thinking runs against Ephesians 2.

Further, the Gnostics did believe in some very odd things. I am not implying you believe all of them. However, the part you are espousing is a very dangerous part. The Gnostics held that man's soul was eternal and good and was held captive by the flesh, the flesh being inherently bad. Therefore, because of this false dichotomy, the Gnostics (especially the Gnostic Christians) believed that one could do anything (even the heinously sinful) with the body because it was inherently bad anyway and the sinful acts they committed in the flesh had no impact or effect on the soul. This concept is patently false and non-Christian.

This is why I said your thinking will lead you into grave error.

What impacts the soul impacts the body; what impacts the body impacts the soul.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Willis,

I'm sorry to break in on another conversation you are having, but I did want to observe two things in your statements (The sentences I have boldened)

How are baies a different topic? They are human such as we are. If they die spiritually dead(which means seperated from God), then their fate is already laid out. To me, a baby is just like Adam and Eve in the Garden pre-fall. When they were little, they ran around naked every chance they got....sound familiar?? Later on, they realized that when they were naked, they dressed themselves before anyone else could see their nakedness.....sound familiar?? Its only when God shows them that they are "naked" before Him, that they/we are held accountable to Him for the sins which we committed.

This is not the case, scripturally speaking. Before God sought out Adam and Eve, they knew they were naked. God did not need to show them. Their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked before God came to inquire of them.

So, there is accountability before God's questioning. They know they have sinned.

Aye, but here's what wrong with using this for an example. No one goes to jail before having a trial, unless they plead guilty(for a lesser charge, or maybe they felt remorseful afterwards and are willing to take their "comeuppance"). But the thing is, they were made an offer to accept something, eventhough they were guilty. The DoG'ers don't believe the ones that end up end hell will get that offer, they just walk around in their "guilty" state and go straight to the electric chair and "ZAP"...so I think that this was a bad analogy for your cause.

This is not true. We (as DoGs) believe that God gives a bona fide offer to anyone. He is not required to do so, but He often does give the offer to those who are not elect. Is it a genuine offer? Absolutely. There is no difference in the offer to a non-elect person and an elect person. The difference is this: with the elect person, God makes the unwilling person willing.

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

As a result of the fall, the whole person (physical and spiritual) was hopelessly corrupted.

Are you saying that the aging process is due to sin?

 

[The Archangel]

Are you saying that the aging process is due to sin?

To some extent I would have to answer yes. To a further extent, all of the "bad stuff" in our world today is due to sin.

Cancer, AIDS, alcoholism, spousal abuse, radical feminism, death, etc. are all due to sin. Now, that is not to say that someone cusses out someone else for cutting them off in traffic and WHAMO! they get cancer. These things (listed above) are part of being fallen creatures living in a fallen world.

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

To some extent I would have to answer yes. To a further extent, all of the "bad stuff" in our world today is due to sin.

Cancer, AIDS, alcoholism, spousal abuse, radical feminism, death, etc. are all due to sin. Now, that is not to say that someone cusses out someone else for cutting them off in traffic and WHAMO! they get cancer. These things (listed above) are part of being fallen creatures living in a fallen world.

The Archangel

What has puzzled me about this is, if the aging process is due to sin, why did Jesus age? I know he is the sinless Son of God. Can you shed some light on this?

 

[The Archangel]

Gal.4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Here's the greek word for redeem used in Gal.4:5

exagorazō Strong's 1805

1) to redeem

a) by payment of a price to recover from the power of another, to ransom, buy off

b) metaph. of Christ freeing the elect from the dominion of the Mosaic Law at the price of his vicarious death

2) to buy up, to buy up for one's self, for one's use

a) to make wise and sacred use of every opportunity for doing good, so that zeal and well doing are as it were the purchase money by which we make the time our own


So to redeem is to "re"cover something by implication.

There are some questions of clarification I need to ask to further pursue a response here.

I think we all agree that some form of payment was made by Christ on the cross. So, here's my question: To whom was the payment made?

The answer to this question will greatly affect your interpretation of the Galatians passage you quoted.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

What has puzzled me about this is, if the aging process is due to sin, why did Jesus age? I know he is the sinless Son of God. Can you shed some light on this?

Jesus aged because He was also man. Jesus had a sin-nature (though He never sinned). Jesus was everything we are as humans. His humanity is not (and cannot be) diminished. The difference with Jesus is that He is the God-Man--fully God and fully man at the same time.

Jesus needed to be fully human (including our inherent sin nature) so that we could be fully redeemed. As Athanasius said (paraphrase): that which is not taken up is not redeemed. Meaning that had Christ not had our sin nature, we could not be redeemed in totality.

So, to enter a ridiculous hypothetical, we may pose the question: Had Christ lived to be 75 before the cross, would He have had gray hair and wrinkles? To some extent, I think the answer has to be yes. But there is no way to know and an exploration of this particular hypothetical exercise would literally be fruitless.

The Archangel