Are you serious? I gave you my answers and they are specific. Now were is yours?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Jesus teach Tulip ?
- Thread starter savedbymercy
- Start date
- Status
Are you serious? I gave you my answers and they are specific. Now were is yours?
Dr. Walter
New Member
Let us cut to the chase. The Bible explicitly denies that God can be tempted with sin or can tempt man to sin:
James 1:13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
On the other hand you are charging God with the purposed intention to tempt man not only to sin but set him up purposely so he would sin.
Furthermore, James explicitly states there is no shady side to God's nature as he is wholly righteous without sin:
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
On the other hand, you are charging God will sinful motives as you make him the author of sin.
Moreover, James explicitly states that sin exists if one fails in only one point in all the law:
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jesus was the revelation of God in human flesh and concerning Christ it is said that he Knew no sin, did no sin and neither was sin found in him and He is the Creator (Jn. 1:1). However, you claim that sin found its origin in the Creator as you claim he purposed sin and conceived it by His plan to set up Adam to fail.
These scriptures IN PRINCIPLE flatly contradict your theory.
In contrast, my position is that God created the very best creation possible, as He never fails to do the best. This creation necessarily included the ability to express love or hate by the faculty of free choice. God revealed the right choice, commanded them to not to make the wrong choice. Sin originated with the exercise of free will in making the wrong choice not with God providing the ability to make either choice.
Sin originates with responsible use of free will based upon previous knowledge of right and wrong or otherwise God would not be able to hold anyone making the wrong choice responsible and God could not in justice condemn them for that choice.
If your theory was correct then God alone is responsible for sin and He has no just basis to condemn anyone for sin they could not help committing. That being the case He would be a hypocrit and Unjust to condemn anyone for sin they were not responsible for!
The fact that God does hold man responsible for sin and that God will judge man for sin proves your theory is wrong!
How then did sin arise? I believe the answer is provided by James also in James 1:13-16
13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Verses 13 and 17 are like two slices of bread and verses 14-16 are the meat in between. The two slices begin and end this discussion by denying your very premise that sin originates with God. Verses 14-16 explicitly identify the source of sin and it is found in the creature not the creator.
Let us explore verses 14-16 in connection with the fall of Adam. My position is that sin originated from good desires wrongly placed.
For example James says that sin is not being tempted but when man is drawn into temptation by his own "lusts." The term "lusts" can mean bad desires but it can also refer to good desires.
In the case of Adam, the temptation was not the tree or the words Satan used to deceive Eve. Eve was deceived but Adam was not deceived but intentionally chose to sin in spite of clearly knowing it was wrong:
1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Adam realized that Eve had violated God's command and therefore sin is the transgression of God's law, whether done in ignorance or knowingly.
I believe God had created the perfect woman for Adam and that she was flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone more harmoniously than any other couple that have ever lived as they were straight from the hand of God and thus the best of mankind. She had to be the most drop dead beautiful woman that ever lived and with a personality to match. Adam LOVED Eve and that love was natural and right. However, it is that very love (lust) that was good that became the temptation and the source of wrong when his love for Eve exceeded his love for God. I believe that Adam would rather die than lose Eve and thus chose willfully to die with her than live without her. His sin originated with "lust" or the desire of love for Eve that was right and good but only became wrong when it exceeded his love for God. This lust is what conceived sin on Adam's part or the choice to die with her than live without her.
The same can be said of Lucifer. The Bible says that sin was "found in him" not in God. He was God's most beautiful and most powerful creation. There was nothing wrong in acknowledging his own beauty and power. There was nothing wrong in wanting to be like God. These are not bad desires just as long as they are kept within the framework of glorifying God through submission and recognition. However, it is these GOOD qualities and GOOD lusts (desires = to be like God) that became the very temptation for sin to be found in him. Pride is simply turning what is good into evil by turning in on your self instead of humbling you and being thankful to God.
Hence, sin originated from the goodness of God bestowed upon his creatures or God given desires that were good as long as they are kept in the proper balance. The temptation in each case was the abuse of what was good. Good became evil through inappropriate application.
Now, the simple fact that God knew this would occur did not make God the author of sin nor did it reflect error in his design. No, God's purpose included overruling and preventing all resultant evil that would thwart His ultimate good goal (Psa. 76:10) and only permitting that which would ultimately work for His glory through manifestation of his justice or grace.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You obviously don't take your point of view to its logical conclusion. Satan also was created without a sin nature yet he consieved pride in his heart. How is this possible if he did not have a sin nature and God Decrees all things? Following this logic to its conclusion lays the blame of Satan's fall, Man's disobedience soley at the feet of God and thus makes calvary nothing more than God cleaning up his own mess. God therefore decreed satan would fall, and man would fall, but that only certain men based on a random system of choice (uncondition election) would be saved by calvary. Thus ultimately God is the cause of sin which is impossible according to scriptures.
So in man's case therefore it could be said man initially wouldn't have thought anything of Equality with God until Satan tempted him with it and thus gave him a reason to have pride "ye shall be like unto gods knowing good and evil". Or some such statement. Man's reason at this time is sorely tempted with a prideful thought. I can be my own God. For I will be like God knowing Good and Evil. But ultimately the act of eating the fruit was a flagerant disregard for God's order "thou shalt not eat of the tree in the middle of the garden" again paraphrased. Thus Adam disobeyed God. But it was pride which was reasoned by man into existance and tempted to go theree by Satan.
Wow, that is quite a bit to respond to so I will take it in bite sizes until I get through it. I have to come and go so it might take some time. Let's begin....
It does create somewhat of a quandary I must admit? But then there is Job....
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,"
"What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
Again I ask, who's plan is it?
I don't see any PRINCIPLE contrary to my belief in this scripture. The Sovereignty of God in even sin is a strange thing for us to understand indeed. Yet it is there to glorify Jesus Christ. Read what Job had to say about the evil that came upon him. He said it was from God.
It does create somewhat of a quandary I must admit? But then there is Job....
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,"
"What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
Again I ask, who's plan is it?
I don't see any PRINCIPLE contrary to my belief in this scripture. The Sovereignty of God in even sin is a strange thing for us to understand indeed. Yet it is there to glorify Jesus Christ. Read what Job had to say about the evil that came upon him. He said it was from God.
This is very interesting scripture when we consider Job. NOw you guys say that God "tested" Adam. Just what is the difference between "testing" and "tempting"?
God said to Satan, "....thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." BUt James says God cannot be tempted with evil. Do we see the quandary?
Dr. Walter
New Member
I simply do not get the connection? Job is referring to providential evil that had occurred in the first two chapters! Sin has consequences that even saved people do not escape. The obvious one is death much less all that leads up to death. Do you believe in Satan? Do you believe sin has consequences? When you were saved did you escape all consequences of sin? ARe you sinless now?
Have you considered these words by Jesus:
Luke 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
There are consequences of sin in this world that none escape and Job certainly was no sinner above anyone else was he?
This response is irrational. You are assuming your own position matches God's plan! That is circular reasoning. The problem is not Whose plan it is, the problem is your understanding and interpretation of that plan.
No, it actually came directly from Satan - read the story. God simply gave Satan permission. God uses Satan to glorify himself and allowing Satan permission was not without restrictions was it? Hence, the principle in Psalm 96:10 is at work in the story of Job.
Actually, the scriptures in James in principle directly contradict your theory in the most blantant way possible.
1. You say God tempted man to sin by setting him up purposely to sin - James says that is not possible.
2. You say God is the author/source of sin- James and clouds of other inspired writers vehemently deny that accusation claiming He is perfectly holy and without sin, He knows no sin and cannot sin and in him there is no "shadow" but pure light of righteousness.
3. You say God is the creator of sin but God says when he created ALL THINGS they were "very good" and God says he cannot look upon sin with approval.
Your theory flatly contradicts the explicit teachings of scriptures and the scriptures you attempt to pit against the explicit statements about his character, his creation, his motives can be intepreted to perfectly harmonize with them instead of contradicting them.
THe same could be said of TULIP's theory of TD and IG.
Another play with words. What is the difference between "allows" and "causes". I believe God is Sovereign and acts upon HIs own Providence and Purpose.
God did set Adam up to fail, this is fact seeing how it is God who implemented His plan with full knowledge of the outcome. God could have said no to this plan and developed another that would not envolve sin, but He didn't, He chose the BEST plan. Thus, the quandary raised with James. Maybe a closer look at what James was refering to is in order.
God cannot sin nor can God be tempted to sin. However, unless one is ignorant of the Sovereignty and Providence of God, one cannot deny that it is God who created the evil and the plan that would have man sin.
My theory takes into consideration the Sovereignty and Providence of God. God is holy and cannot sin nor be tempted to sin, yet God created the evil and the plan, a perfect plan to glorify His name.
Do you find a fault is God's plan? Do you wish Adam would never had sinned? If Adam does not sin, Jesus is not glorified and God is left with a creation of puppets who cannot understand true love.
savedbymercy
New Member
convicted
That verse is evidence that Christ taught particular redemption. His call here is for a specific characterize people, not everyone without exception. Jesus specifically tells us who is telling to come to Him, and its a command not an offer, its to all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
And when Jesus says come to Him, they have Life, because a dead sinner cannot come to Christ in a spiritual manner, because He or She is Dead in sin. Jesus is speaking therefore to whom it is said " all that the Father giveth to me shall come to me Jn 6:37.
So this is a particular summons to a particular people ! A People who has been quickened by the Spirit and slain by the Law of God, that now knows that all their efforts[for salvation and righteousness] by trying to keep the law has been worthless, and now they will find spiritual rest in Christ..
That verse is evidence that Christ taught particular redemption. His call here is for a specific characterize people, not everyone without exception. Jesus specifically tells us who is telling to come to Him, and its a command not an offer, its to all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
And when Jesus says come to Him, they have Life, because a dead sinner cannot come to Christ in a spiritual manner, because He or She is Dead in sin. Jesus is speaking therefore to whom it is said " all that the Father giveth to me shall come to me Jn 6:37.
So this is a particular summons to a particular people ! A People who has been quickened by the Spirit and slain by the Law of God, that now knows that all their efforts[for salvation and righteousness] by trying to keep the law has been worthless, and now they will find spiritual rest in Christ..
Dr. Walter
New Member
Prove it!
Do you know, or recognize the difference between primary and secondary causes?
Maybe a closer look at your logic! You cannot say out of one side of your mouth God purposely set Adam up to fail and out of the other side of your mouth say God is without sin and yet God purposed Adam to sin! Both cannot logically be right! I will side with James. My position harmonizes the problem. My position includes primary versus secondary causes in regard to the origin of evil. The primary cause is God in that he created the mechanism of free choice for the stated "good" purpose to freely love God and choose righteousness but without coercion by God. God could not create free will without necessarily granting permission for evil as free choice is not possible without alternative options. However, creation of the mechanism and granting permission of the existence of evil does not necessarily demand that God approves evil or is the actual cause of evil.
The intent and origin of evil is found in responsible secondary causes. What God created for the intent of "good" became the source of the origin of evil. God cannot be charged with evil in regard to intent or direct cause because God created the mechanism of free choice to be used only for "good" and not only explcitly stated that but warned against the consequences of exercising that freedom to originate evil thus making the creature completely responsible for the wrong exercise of free choice. God did not make Lucifer sin as that very idea denies "free" choice. Neither did God make Eve or Adam to sin as that very idea denies "free" choice. The concept of "free" choice not only necessarily demands ability to choose ALTERNATIVE options but the responsiblity for whatever options are "freely" chosen.
How then did sin originate? It originated from what God created as "good" and from desires that were designed by God for "good". Free will is the secondary but responsible cause for the origin of sin. The vehicles for determining to choose sin over righteousness by responsible free agencies were the very desires that God designed to be "good" and thus sin originated from the very best "good" designed by God.
Again, free agency by definition requires alternative choices and thus by necessity requires permission for wrong choice. Moreover, "free" agency by defintion denies any kind of coercion by God in determining and making that choice or else it is not a "free" choice. Furthermore, the fact that God explicitly warned against the wrong choice made the "free" agent accountable for making such a choice and freed God from any culpability.
Did God know that sin would gain entrance into the very best conceivable creative plan that included free agents? Most certainly, and so God's perfect plan includes also that which necessarily would acheive the highest good and greatest glory for God in spite of the inclusion of sin. The necessary permission (without approbation) of evil as an alternative choice to righteousness is not isolated from the fact that God decreed to restrict it within the scope of ultimate good and achievment of the greatest glory for God as well (Psa. 76:10).
God given ability accompanied with clear instructions for the proper use of that ability is the meaning of accountability. Violation of Divine instructions is by definition transgression of God's law. Where there is accountability there is also just consequences for irresponsibility. Justice glorifies God's righteousness whereas the absence of justice for sin would not only be a reproach upon the character of God but proof there is no righteous and holy God.
What about the Tempter and temptation? Can God be blamed for either! James flatly denies this in them most explicit and clear langauge possible. If you cannot harmonize this with your logic it may be perhaps that God's logic is above your logic and that may be one reason He is God and you are not.
However, temptation according to James originates WITHIN not OUTSIDE of man's nature. God cannot be tempted because there is nothing INSIDE of God's nature that can "freely" choose evil simply because God's nature is IMMUTABLY righteous (Mal. 3:6). God cannot tempt anyone else to sin because that requires sinful intentons WITHIN his own nature. Hence, it is impossible for God either to be tempted to sin or to tempt others to sin.
However, at least one third of the angels and humans were not created with an immutable righteous nature as they were capable of falling from their "upright" condition as created from the hands of God and thus created "good" and to be "good." Therefore, since temptation comes from WITHIN not from OUTSIDE, then no one OUTSIDE can be blamed for them yeilding to temptation except themselves. That is what James explicitly and clearly teaches.
How then does sin originate? James says it originates through internal "lust". The term "lust" does not necessarily mean "evil" desires. God did not create any creature with innate "evil" desires but created them "upright." However, "good" desires can be abused and that is precisely how sin originated from "good" desires (love) misdirected by free choice in regard to providential contrary options.
I believe that Adam intentionally (exercise of free choice) chose to rather die with Eve than to live without Eve (1 Tim. 2:13) because of misdirected "love" for her. Misdirected, because it was not evil to love Eve and it is honorable to give up your own life out of love for another. However, the evil here, is that he chose to "love" Eve ABOVE God. The same is true in Lucifer which in reality becomes "self" love.
I see the creation as a Battle between good - God -, and evil - sin.
"Nothing that was made / created ..."'Nothing' and nothingness, existed and exists because God made it. The nothingness also existed by God's will.
From this NOTHING ('nihil') which "was made", God created.
"God makes / made the darkness" a Psalm says.
In the beginning God from the darkness He had made, "made heaven and earth".
"Into the Kingdom of God's Dear Son", is "out of" _God's_ "kingdom of darkness".
Christ said as He entered into his Last Suffering, that He entered into the Kingdom of His Father.
Christ triumphed IN BATTLE on the battlefield of his Father's Kingdom, "three days thick darkness", and God in Christ won Lordship.
In the beginning (Jesus the True Witness and Beginning of the creation _OF GOD_"), God from DARKNESS (the creation _OF GOD_) ordered forth, light; and from CHAOS (the creation _OF GOD_), commanded separation and distinction, peace and order.
I see the creation as a Battle between good - God -, and evil – sin, with God BEFORE AND AFTER, IN CONTROL.
An explanation of sin of necessity is an excuse for, sin.
So the Bible - God's Word - rather explains God's overruling acts; it's much easier to understand and needs no speculation.
"Nothing that was made / created ..."'Nothing' and nothingness, existed and exists because God made it. The nothingness also existed by God's will.
From this NOTHING ('nihil') which "was made", God created.
"God makes / made the darkness" a Psalm says.
In the beginning God from the darkness He had made, "made heaven and earth".
"Into the Kingdom of God's Dear Son", is "out of" _God's_ "kingdom of darkness".
Christ said as He entered into his Last Suffering, that He entered into the Kingdom of His Father.
Christ triumphed IN BATTLE on the battlefield of his Father's Kingdom, "three days thick darkness", and God in Christ won Lordship.
In the beginning (Jesus the True Witness and Beginning of the creation _OF GOD_"), God from DARKNESS (the creation _OF GOD_) ordered forth, light; and from CHAOS (the creation _OF GOD_), commanded separation and distinction, peace and order.
I see the creation as a Battle between good - God -, and evil – sin, with God BEFORE AND AFTER, IN CONTROL.
An explanation of sin of necessity is an excuse for, sin.
So the Bible - God's Word - rather explains God's overruling acts; it's much easier to understand and needs no speculation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gup20
Active Member
Dr. Walter,
I have found your posts illuminating, well articulated, and a thoroughly accurate exegesis of scripture. That being said, I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that TULIP is an accurate theology. Whatever version of TULIP you are advocating, it is spectacularly divergent from any common view of Calvinism I've ever heard. For example, I don't know any Calvinists who believe in free will. They believe so strongly in the Sovereignty of God that free will infringes on that sovereignty. (I believe Deuteronomy 30:1, 19 show that God gives us a choice)
And Steaver too -- had I not read every post in this entire thread, I would get the impression that Steaver is arguing for Calvinism and Dr. Walter is arguing against it.
All of that having been stated, let me move on to the precisely 2 points that you have gotten wrong in this thread, Dr. Walter (do you like how I impose my underlying assumption that I am qualified to stand and judge the right or wrongness of your interpretation of scripture - the height of arrogance!) At any rate, here are the two points of contention I have:
Your interpretation of Acts 11:18b is that God must grant someone repentance in order for them to change their heart condition from darkness to light.
This is an incorrect interpretation for the following two reasons:
1) By the context we see that the point in question was whether salvation was for the Jews only, or if God made it available also to the Gentiles. The point of the verse is not to say that God must grant salvation to a person before their heart can change, but rather to say that God has included the Gentiles in the plan for salvation, and it is not specific to the Jews alone.
2) The verse lacks individual specificity. The verse says "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." Had it said "God has granted Maximus repentance" or "God has granted him repentance," then it would refer to an individual. However, the verse states that God has granted "the gentiles" the repentance that leads to salvation. "The gentiles" is a pretty broad group of persons who have been "granted repentance." Under your interpretation of this verse, "all gentiles" must necessarily have had their heart changed from darkness to light.
The other mistake you made was the following:
In question is Romans 5:12 -
You say that all men sinned in Adam. However, I disagree. The verse clearly states that "death spread to all men" not that sin spread to all men. In the KJV, it says "death passed upon all men". Additionally, the verse goes on to describe the nature of death being passed to all men - because all have sinned. It is not Adam's sin that condemns anyone, it is our own sin.
You also say the fact that infants, who have not committed a sin, die is proof. The biggest reason for this misinterpretation is that - Jesus died. Does this prove that Jesus was a sinner?
Consider Romans 5's continued explanation;
These verses say that, although sin was happening, it was not being imputed when there was no law. At this time, the only law was "do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"... clearly no one was breaking that law. Nevertheless, everyone between Adam and Moses (when the law was given) still experienced death.
Death was the consequence for sin (Rom 6:23). The consequence for Adam's sin is experienced by all, but we all deserve it because we are all sinners.
I have found your posts illuminating, well articulated, and a thoroughly accurate exegesis of scripture. That being said, I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that TULIP is an accurate theology. Whatever version of TULIP you are advocating, it is spectacularly divergent from any common view of Calvinism I've ever heard. For example, I don't know any Calvinists who believe in free will. They believe so strongly in the Sovereignty of God that free will infringes on that sovereignty. (I believe Deuteronomy 30:1, 19 show that God gives us a choice)
And Steaver too -- had I not read every post in this entire thread, I would get the impression that Steaver is arguing for Calvinism and Dr. Walter is arguing against it.
All of that having been stated, let me move on to the precisely 2 points that you have gotten wrong in this thread, Dr. Walter (do you like how I impose my underlying assumption that I am qualified to stand and judge the right or wrongness of your interpretation of scripture - the height of arrogance!) At any rate, here are the two points of contention I have:
Your interpretation of Acts 11:18b is that God must grant someone repentance in order for them to change their heart condition from darkness to light.
This is an incorrect interpretation for the following two reasons:
1) By the context we see that the point in question was whether salvation was for the Jews only, or if God made it available also to the Gentiles. The point of the verse is not to say that God must grant salvation to a person before their heart can change, but rather to say that God has included the Gentiles in the plan for salvation, and it is not specific to the Jews alone.
2) The verse lacks individual specificity. The verse says "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." Had it said "God has granted Maximus repentance" or "God has granted him repentance," then it would refer to an individual. However, the verse states that God has granted "the gentiles" the repentance that leads to salvation. "The gentiles" is a pretty broad group of persons who have been "granted repentance." Under your interpretation of this verse, "all gentiles" must necessarily have had their heart changed from darkness to light.
The other mistake you made was the following:
In question is Romans 5:12 -
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned
You say that all men sinned in Adam. However, I disagree. The verse clearly states that "death spread to all men" not that sin spread to all men. In the KJV, it says "death passed upon all men". Additionally, the verse goes on to describe the nature of death being passed to all men - because all have sinned. It is not Adam's sin that condemns anyone, it is our own sin.
You also say the fact that infants, who have not committed a sin, die is proof. The biggest reason for this misinterpretation is that - Jesus died. Does this prove that Jesus was a sinner?
Consider Romans 5's continued explanation;
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
These verses say that, although sin was happening, it was not being imputed when there was no law. At this time, the only law was "do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"... clearly no one was breaking that law. Nevertheless, everyone between Adam and Moses (when the law was given) still experienced death.
Death was the consequence for sin (Rom 6:23). The consequence for Adam's sin is experienced by all, but we all deserve it because we are all sinners.
Of course this is just theory, no scripture states it is so. But I would point to Adam's response to God in Gen 3:12 which pretty much throws Eve under the bus. Doesn't really support your love theory much.
He sure did. If that's love, no thanks.
"honey, I love you so much that I'll die with you, but make no mistake this is ALL your fault and I'm telling God!" :laugh:
Lol, I have been called a Calvinist many times, but it is usually because of my stand on OSAS. My point to the Calvinist is that they strongly preach the Sovereignty of God, as you said, until someone like me declares God's Sovereignty in Adam's failure, then they declare Adam's freewill has trumped the Sovereignty of God.
Dr. Walter
New Member
His rational occurred BEFORE his fall into sin. After the fall into sin we see the effects of sin trying to escape his previous decisions - that is what sin does, it turns you on self. Indeed, his original rationale was reality a selfish pattern of thought but when implemented it produced a self-centered man.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Well, I am not a Calvinist. I am a Biblicist. I believe the Calvinistic argument over free will BEFORE the fall is not accurate or necessary. Indeed, I believe it complicates the truth rather than supports the truth.
1. The bondage of the will is the consequence of the fall. It is sinful man who is totally depraved not prefallen man.
2. Free will prior to the fall is essential for noncoercive alternative choice or else sin can be blamed on whatever coerced the choice.
3. The fact that God created man a responsible free agent clears God from all intent and accusation as the Author of sin.
4. The scriptures are clear and explicit that God's nature is incapable of temptation because it is established in immutable holiness and therefore cannot contain intent to tempt anyone else to sin.
5. The scripture are clear that EVERYTHING God created was "good" and He could look upon everything and say it was "very good." Hence, sin was not created but originated from the "good" that God created.
If that is how you understand my interpretation of Acts 11:18b then either you misinterpreted my words or I failed to make myself clear. I do not believe that God must grant someone repentance "in order FOR THEM to change their heart condition from darkness to light" but that very grant is God changing their heart from darkness to light.
First your translation is not accurate. There is no "lead to" in the Greek text. The Greek has words for "lead" and that is not the term used here. The Greek preposition "eis" is what you have translated "leads to". My Greek teachers taught me that when the preposition "eis" is used with the accusative case in the direct object that it has the idea of termination. There is no sense of extended time in the preposition "eis" but only the sense of termination in the object regardless of time. So it can be rendered "repentance that terminates in life." Moreover, there is more than one kind of eternal life involved in initial salvation. There is spiritual eternal life that is due to regeneration by the Spirit and is your condition by new birth. However, there is judicial eternal life that is not due directly to regeneration but rather resultant of justification by faith and is your LEGAL STANDING by justification. The Greek term "teknia" is used of a child by birth but "huios" refers to a son by legal adoption. Justification is declarative of righteousness before the Law which grants LEGAL life just as much as it grants LEGAL condemnation to the unrighteous.
Repentance is the negative side of faith. One turns from sin to Christ and repentance is that aspect of turning from sin. Turning to Christ is faith. When you turn FROM sin you are turning to sin's solution by faith in Christ. Faith is a gift of God and is authored by Christ and finished by Christ and is of grace and therefore so also is repentance.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Your missing his point. He says "through one man" not through many men sin entered the world. You cannot deny that Adam represented many by one act of disobedience unless you deny Christ reprsented many by his obedience.
According to your logic we are no more sinners in Adam by "one man's disobedience" than we are righteous in Christ by "one man's obedience."
Furthermore, you ignore the Aorist tense "for all have sinned" not all SHALL sin. Death spread to all men because all men sinned IN ADAM by representation and by nature as they were literally one with Adam in nature.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
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.
Apply your logic to the same words about Christ and you deny that "by one man's obedience many were made righteous" and thus teach by many men's obediences they are made righteous and thus righteousness spreads to all who are obedient thus repudiating the very purpose for even saying "by one man's obedience many were made righteous" In other words, according to your logic it is not one man's obedience that makes anyone rightoues but their own obedience that makes them righteous as this is exactly what you say of Adam, that it was not his disobedience that made us sinners but our own disobedience that made us sinners. Thus you not only repudiate Paul's obvous parallelism between Adam and the Second Adam but you repudiate the whole doctrine of salvation by grace. If one man's offence cannot represent us then one man's obedience cannot represent us. If death does not come by one man's offence then righteousness cannot come by one man's obedience. If one man's disobedience cannot make many dead than neither can one man's death justify any more than the man who died.
First, Jesus did not die! he was killed. He obeyed the law and therefore was not subject to death. He gave up his spirit. However, infants die of natural causes. David twice says that infants are born with a sin nature and they sin as soon as they are born. I have had five children and you do not have to teach any child to sin. You have to teach them to be righteous. They received that sin nature in Adam when all humanity acted in Adam. All have sinned not SOME have sinned. Your logic requires only SOME have sinned because when Paul said this you and billions others were not born.
Consider Romans 5's continued explanation;
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
These verses say that, although sin was happening, it was not being imputed when there was no law. At this time, the only law was "do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"... clearly no one was breaking that law. Nevertheless, everyone between Adam and Moses (when the law was given) still experienced death.
Death was the consequence for sin (Rom 6:23). The consequence for Adam's sin is experienced by all, but we all deserve it because we are all sinners.[/QUOTE]
I understand your reasoning but I believe it is wrong. In the preceding chapters Paul proves that the law given by Moses to the jews was to define what sin is (Rom. 3:21) but that we are justified "without the works of the law" (Rom. 3:24-4:16). Many of his reader were Jews. His point in verse 13 is that the Law given to Moses did not exist between Adam until Moses but yet all died between Adam and Moses - proof that death did not occur because of violation of Mosaic Law. Hence, death had some other origin for its cause and the only other origin is "through the offence of one many be dead," - they sinned in Adam - "for all HAVE sinned."
Secondly, death even reigned over those who did not commit the same kind of sin that Adam committed! 1 Tim. 2:13 tells us explicitly that Adam's sin was intentional with full light. However, infants and mentally impaired persons who are incapable of discerning right from wrong and therefore without intentional sin still die. Therefore the source of their death must originate before their birth in someone else - "through the offence of one many be dead,"
Last edited by a moderator:
This of course is more speculation that must be done because of the first specualtion.
You say Adam loved Eve so much that he CHOSE TO DIE with her. Then you say that the sin changed his attitude towards her and he then hated her. Yes, if you throw your supposed loved one under the bus, even as a unregenerated sinner, you really didn't love that person at all. Even the unregenerated lost examples we see today do not throw their loved ones under the bus, when this does happen it proves they never truly loved that person. Adam's betrayal of Eve proves that his reason for eating the fruit was not because he loved Eve more than God. I admit, Adam chosing to die for his wife sounds wonderfully noble, but that just isn't the underlying motive for his disobedience.
- Status