Featured A determined view of salvation or the RIGHT view, part deux

God made the world "very good", but what does "very good" mean? For one thing, it means you were born with a free will, you are not a robot. But that freedom (which is very good) enables the possibility of sin, it cannot be avoided.

If God made us robots, then yes, he could make a world without sin. But that would not be good or moral. God is love, he cannot force or compel people to love him, he MUST give them free choice.

And you need to quit saying Adam blew it for us, that is pure error started by the Catholic church and especially Augustine. It was unknown in the early centuries of the church.

God himself said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

God is not unjust, he does not punish a son for the sins his father committed or vice versa. Here is scripture that directly says that, plain as day.

But again, you will completely ignore the word of God and believe what some Calvinist taught you. Very unwise.

 

You are correct, it does not say WHY this is so. I have admitted that. I believe God must give people free will which makes the possibility of sin unavoidable, but that is my personal belief.

But it does say IT MUST NEEDS BE THAT OFFENCES COME. God could not make a world without sin as many here falsely say.

 

So what, that does not mean he wanted it. Such an idea cannot be known, and being that God is infinite and we are not we need to leave room for the possibility that we do not know all the options where God is concerned.

We do not know all the possibilities scripture has not given this issue. We need to remain silent where scripture is silent.

 

Baloney, God either wanted sin or he did not. In Willis's view God wanted sin, in my view God did not, but it cannot be avoided.

 

You don't know that. No one does.

Job's friends thought they knew about God as well. God called them on their arrogance as well.

 

Must does not equal can't.

 

If you want to play mind games, that is your choice, but God either desired that sin exist or he did not. These are the only possible options.

Now, I think the scriptures are absolutely clear that God HATES sin. God is not a hypocrite, and God does not talk out of both sides of his mouth as Calvinists do.

In Willis's view God wanted sin. In Calvinism, God NEEDS sin to glorify himself. He NEEDS sin so he can punish all the folks he cursed to be born with a sin nature in hell forever for doing the very thing he cursed them to do. Otherwise, in Willis's view, God could have created a world without sin, or he could have regenerated every sinner. So obviously, God wants sin, sin glorifies God when he punishes it.

In my view, God is LOVE. He wants to LOVE people. God does not want to spend eternity loving himself, he wants to express that love by loving others. But being a God of love, he cannot compel people to love him, he MUST give them the choice to love him or hate him. This is wonderful, but it makes the possibility of sin necessary, it cannot be avoided.

Now, I might be mistaken on WHY sin is necessary, but I am not mistaken that sin is necessary, Jesus said it MUST NEEDS BE.

Must means MUST.

 

So, they are accountable simply because they KNOW what they are doing is wrong even if they can't help but do it? So, once again, what do they have to account for? It sounds like to me you believe that man is punishable for God determinations, not that man is actually responsible for his own determinations. (responsible actually meaning, 'able to respond')

 

Winman, this statement by Jesus is made in light of the fact of the presence of sin already in the world. It is like his statement in Matthew 10:35 that he did not come to bring peace but a sword. The kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light coexist in the same world and therefore there must need be war with each other in this world, as they cannot coexist in peace with each other.

Therefore, since sin exists in the world along with righteousness there must needs be conflict/war/offences.

Jesus does not have God's purpose of creation in view, but the conflict between sin and righteousness already in this present world in view.

 

Skandelon, your problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Adam stood as the representative of the human race in the garden in regard to the test of free will and that all humanity acted and was summed up in one person - Adam. Adam, thus all human nature, with full ability acted presumptuosly and sinned willfully against God. In that act of willful sin the fall of not merely Adam, but ALL HUMANITY occurred. If ONLY Adam sinned then ONLY Adam fell and hence, each and every son of Adam enters unfallen and God individually tests each - that is the logical conclusion of your position and of Arminianiams but which is totally repudiated by Romans 5:12-19.

However, when one man sinned, the whole of human nature sinned (Rom. 5:12) and that is why by ONE MAN's DISOBEDIENCE all were made sinners, death reigned upon all, condemnation came upon all. So simple to see if you will just believe what the Scriptures clearly and explicitly teach.

However, your position demands rationally that ONLY ADAM FELL - period.

 

Yeah, he should get off his "baloney" diet and try "ham" or "turkey" or something new - perhaps go vegan!

 

That explains why men sin and need a savior, it doesn't explain why God decided that the consequences of the fallen condition would be the inability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled from that fallen condition. You have yet to address THAT point. You simply keep restating the companies talking points instead of dealing with the major issues.

So, if you walk up on a guy kicking the tree and starting a fire to burn it down and ask him, "Why are you kicking and burning that peach tree?" And he replies, "Because it won't produce a single apple even after my many appeals." You won't think he is a NUT!?

What about the parent who cripples his child because of his older brothers mistake and then beats him for not being able to walk? I know that is not how you see God, but that is almost EXACTLY what your system teaches about our God.

Calvinism teaches, "God bound men all over to disobedience so as to torture most of them and show mercy to a lucky few."

Paul says, "God bound all over to disobedience so as to show mercy to them ALL." Rom. 11:32

I'll stick with Paul's version of God.

 

Incorrect. I affirm federal headship. I just do so consistently in that the same 'all' being represented by Adam is the same 'all' represented by the second Adam (Christ.)

And NO that doesn't necessitate universalism...not if you affirm the ancient and very common understanding of provisional atonement (i.e the passover, the serpent lifted in the dessert, etc)

Tell me, do you believe Adam had contra-causal free will prior to falling or was his decision compatibilistically determined by God in the same way your choices are?

I'll let you know when you represent our view correctly the first time so as know whether you are debating us or a straw-man

 

Incorrect! Your problem is that all in Adam are born of the flesh but one must be "created in Christ Jesus" by new birth. Hence, the parallelism is not exact. However, all who are "created in Christ" none are lost. Therefore, all IN ADAM do not equal ALL IN CHRIST.

Incorrect again! The passover is limited to only circumcised and thus by type a picture of a limited effectual atonement. Likewise, the redemptive money is another picture of limited atonement. Israel was not the only people in the world but they are the only people who typified the elect of God - again limited atonement.

Another characteristic of false teaching is ultimately they are driven from scripture to vain philosophy and philosophical terminology to defend themselves.

No, there are no fallen men in an imperfect environmentwho could do better than an unfallen man in a perfect environment - so no to contra-causal speculative reasoning.

Free agency is perfectly consistent with God's determinate will.

I have yet to confront a person embracing a false doctrine who will admit to its inconsistencies.

 

god gave that free will gift to Adam, who is the head of all of those merely physically boen, he blew the offer, ALL after that point found by God in his sin, and we confirm tht state by willully sinning...

ONLy Jewsus had the free will of Adam as he was the second adam, without sin nature, and God incarnate...

So the much more correct answer would be that God chose to have the fall occur, as in it, via the Cross of the messiah, he would receive most glory and praise, and he would chose to reddem a remant out from wicked and deserving judgement humanity for His namesake!

 

How many non cals do you interact with who keep on beating the "we have real free will still" horse?

 

Ok we have a disagreement I say the same 'all' represented by Adam is the same 'all' represented by Christ and you say Adam represented all and Jesus represented a preselected few. Let's go to scripture and see what it says:

"...the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."​

Now, you need to explain how this verse fits in your system and then provide a passage to support what you have argued, otherwise we are just restating our views without biblical support.

Bro, it was provided for the whole, but they individually had to wipe the blood on the door...that is provisional atonement. The WHOLE in this case is the world, where as then it was for Israel...however many scholars believe that even believing Egyptians could have followed this provision in faith and been saved from this plague.

Again, it was PROVIDED for the whole, but only those who did what was asked in faith benefitted...which is why not every Jew experienced the provision of the atoning sacrifices.

The snake lifted in the dessert is another perfect example. It was provided for whosoever looked to the snake in faith for healing. Provided for the whole but only effective for the individual who responded as told in faith. This concept of provisional atonement is as old as the scriptures and it hasn't changed. You have to prove that the model of the OT provisional atonement wasn't actually a model at all. Good luck.