Featured Could the Fall have been Avoided as per Arminian Theology?

We will have to agree to disagree. The scriptures say God does not tempt any man. That is pretty clear. Did God know Satan would approach Eve? I am sure he did, and he allowed it. Obedience cannot truly be obedience unless it is tested.

God also knew Satan would tempt Jesus in the wilderness, that does not mean God directed Satan to tempt Jesus, only that he allowed it.

It is a subtle difference. It is like allowing your children to take the car for the very first time. You are allowing a situation where they might drive foolishly and have an accident, but that is not your intent whatsoever. It is actually a moment of trust on your part. When God allowed Satan to tempt Eve, it was actually a moment of trust which Eve failed. Jesus did not fail when he was tempted.

I do agree with you that love requires choice. I believe God MUST give man free choice because he is love. He cannot force anyone.

 

How do you know God doesn't wait to see what we do on occasion? He said he does.

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

God told Abraham "for now I know" that he feared God. Are you going to call God a liar?

Was God lying when he told Abraham "for now I know that thou fearest God"?

Yes or no?

 

Agreed!

Agreed - God's permissive will must be recognized in regard to evil (Psa. 76:10).

Agreed - God's permissive will must be recognized in regard to evil (Psa. 76:10)

Wrong! The Bible does agree with your charge against Eve. The Bible says she was "deceived" and so it was not a failure of trust on her part but a failure of understanding as her mind was manipulated into thinking what she was doing was not contrary to God's will. That is the very nature of "deception" - faulting understanding that thinks something is what it isn't.

Wrong! God's love does not require God to provide free will to fallen angels to reverse their initial decision nor redemption for fallen angels who are greater in nature than man.

The power of alternative moral choice in by its very design and nature requires two contrary options for it to even function and thus requires the necessary divine permission for evil to be the only other alternative option to the choice of righteousness. Without purposed permission for evil to enter God's creation there is no such thing as alternative moral choice.

So alternative moral choice is not demanded because of God's love but because of the very nature and design of alternative moral choice.

 

Fine, then Adam was the one who broke God's trust. Happy?

How in the world do you know what God's love requires? My, you are full of yourself!!

You actually think you know what you are talking about.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You must be the most BORING person EVER.

I really don't even read what you say, that is how BORING it is. Sorry, but that is the truth. Try using fewer words.

Total drivel.

You should quit trying to impress people with how smart you are, because you AREN'T.

 

:thumbs:

Ok! Is alternative choice possible without alternative choices????? If not, then, it is not God's love that requires it, but the very nature of alternative choice that requires it. The fact that fallen angels no longer have such a choice, would be according to your reasoning, IF based on God's love, prove God never really ever loved them in the first place. Think about this before you respond or roll your eyes or advertise what you don't know or understand.

Hmmmmm, it seems to me that the only person who thinks I am smart and impressive is you as NNE ELSE including myself ever even suggests such an idea or has ever claimed it! I guess I should thank you for the compliment but I don't think you were intending to be complimentary!

 

Do you take all that is written is Scripture literally? Frequently figures of speech are used!

You will have to take that up with the Calvinists on board.

 

What kind of question is that? Is alternative choice possible without alternative choice? That's circular and means nothing at all!

I cannot say why angels do not have a chance to be saved, AND NEITHER CAN YOU!

And this is how much of your personal philosophy is, it is comprised of numerous assumptions on your part that in your mind you believe is established fact! Then you will make bold statements that you cannot be refuted.

You have no idea why angels cannot be saved, ZILCH. You do not know this, I don't care how much you have convinced yourself you know. But you talk like your view is established fact. Your arguments are fallacy from beginning to end.

Dude, I don't know of anybody who quotes themselves over and over and over. You are transparent as glass.

You try to sound intelligent, but as I wrote earlier, your views are comprised of numerous ASSUMPTIONS on your part. You think you know things as fact that you cannot possibly know, such as why God didn't offer angels salvation.

 

If scripture can be taken literally, I take it literally. Some scripture it is obvious cannot be taken literally. We cannot literally eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood, so this is figurative for example.

This king of Tyrus was probably a real king, but it is obvious that Satan is also being represented, only Satan was in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve that we know for fact. This same person is shown in heaven which we also know of Satan as fact. It then says he was perfect in his ways in the day he was created, until iniquity was found in him. So, he was created perfect, but later chose to sin.

Now, if the Calvinist view is correct, it would be impossible for Satan to sin, as he was created with a perfect nature. This proves this argument to be totally false. Obviously someone with a perfect nature CAN sin. Adam and Eve also prove this, they were both VERY GOOD, yet both sinned.

So, this argument should be trashed.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

As you usual, you don't read too well. Notice the difference between the singular "choice" and plural "choices"? I guess I have to break it down and baby feed you. The singular refers to the singular ability of "choice" while the plural refers to the plural alternatives for "choice." Try again to understand my point and my point is that the very nature of the power of alternative choice necessarily demands the permission of sin as the only possible alternative choice to the choice of obedience. Think about it now, before responding too quickly.

 

Do I call you a Pelagian Winman even though you are a freewiller?

Definition of PELAGIAN

: one agreeing with Pelagius in denying original sin and consequently in holding that individuals have perfect freedom to do either right or wrong

 

I am not sure what Pelagius believed, and I would bet I know as much about him as you do. I would bet you have never read Pelagius, but all you know about him comes from his critics and enemies. Not a very reliable source.

I do not believe in Original Sin, many Christians have held this view for the same reasons I do, there is MUCH scripture that refutes it.

I do not believe any person can be saved without God's grace, but I believe all men are capable of choosing to believe or not to believe in Jesus. I do not believe a person must be regenerated to be able to believe.

The word regeneration means to be "alive again" which itself refutes Original Sin. You must have been alive ONCE to be alive AGAIN, so this very word which is found in scripture REFUTES Original Sin.

No man can be regenerated or alive again until his sins are forgiven. It is sin that causes spiritual death. The moment a person knowingly and willingly sins they spiritually die. Death is a JUDGMENT. It is condemnation.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Spiritual death means to be condemned. A person who believes shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life. They are no longer condemned.

 

That is not what God said. God said that NOW I know that thou fearest God.

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

I am not like you Yeshua1, you believe what men tell you to believe. I believe what the scriptures say. God very plainly said NOW I know that thou fearest God.

I happen to believe God is very intelligent and knows how to express himself properly, and I do not believe God makes mistakes.

I would be very careful not to accuse God of being a liar Yeshua1. Not wise.

 

If I read correctly, all of Pelagius' writings were burned up. Soooo, if that's true, none of us know what he truly believed.

 

Convicted, there is some interesting "stuff" in the following wiki article about Pelagius. Seems more of us may have some P tendencies.....if this article has any veracity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius