Featured For the Truth Seeker

Yup. you haven't been here that long.

The Sovereignty of God that you are really looking for is the Sovereignty which is NOT in Scripture, which is that you want God to give all men what he gave to Adam.

I will not be a spelling police here, but I assume you mean "potato".

Elucidate further.

 

whoever said that ?

No, the ability to sin was not part of God's design for Adam. Otherwise, God does not make anything good, or very good. He would simply be an automobile manufacturer who needs to issue recalls every now and then.

Rather, it is my understanding of Scripture that he was where he wasn't supposed to be, and he wasn't doing what he was supposed to be doing, which is leading his wife, who had wandered away, gotten enticed by the serpent, and Adam seeing no harm came to Eve, took of the same fruit.
In other words, he was being dumb like a sheep, and not wise and wily, like a serpent.
He took his eyes off his Creator, and focused it in the things around him, and he became self-centered, instead of Christ-centered, and the trait of self-centeredness was passed on to us.
That is why we need to be taught Christ-centeredness in church.

And speaking of Christ, that is why He alone is able to do what the first federal head of His people failed to do, because He wasn't a created being, He was focused on the will of His Father, and totally obedient in the face of His limitations as Deity in human form.

 

but you keep talking about ability.
Like I already said, I uphold the fact that God did not design Adam with the ability to sin.
And God did not instill, or design, free will in Adam.
He created them free to obey, or disobey.
He disobeyed.
You want a flawed Creator, that is your business.
I don't know why Adam sinned, it was not explained in the Bible, and I like to keep it that way.

 

For goodness sakes, man.
Does it have to be written that Adam was restricted ?
He had total freedom to move around in the garden, how big the garden is, I don't know.
Apparently there were many trees in the garden, one of which was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which he was told to not mess with, and another the tree of life.
These had to be located in their own locations somewhere in the garden.
Eve had to be wandering near the location of the forbidden fruit otherwise the serpent could not have tempted her.

then move.

 

Uh what? I didn't slander you, just pointed out that you are guilty of what you accuse the evil Calvies of. It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you care nothing about actually debating the issue, you only want to argue and make accusations against Calvinists. You are the slanderer, not me.

Again, what? There was no bragging in my post.

Do you understand what it means to grant, or permit as you say? It means that they are granted something, or given the ability to do something, that they can't naturally do. There would be no reason for the Father to grant anything if everyone is permitted this. Think about it.

Also, admitting that God hardens hearts totally works against your position. I hope you can at least see that.

I don't like the NIV, but that seems to be a good translation. If God grants something, he enables it. There is no difference in meaning between the HCS and the NIV here.

 

Apparently Van doesn't think so. Nor did Winman. I hate to label people or be cliche but their doctrine sounds similar to semi-pelagianism.

Naturally I disagree that God "woos" everyone. That's a weird word to use anyway. Scripture says God "draws" people to himself and that all who are drawn are given to the Son.

Pharaoh is an interesting case. I think you are reading your presupposition into the text because I think Exodus is clear, God never intended to allow Pharaoh a chance to repent. God raised him up to destroy him and glorify himself.

Exodus 4:21 HCSB The Lord instructed Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, make sure you do all the wonders before Pharaoh that I have put within your power. But I will harden his heart so that he won’t let the people go.

Exodus 7:3 HCSB But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart and multiply My signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 14:4 HCSB I will harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he will pursue them. Then I will receive glory by means of Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.” So the Israelites did this.

Exodus 14:17 HCSB I am going to harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them, and I will receive glory by means of Pharaoh, all his army, and his chariots and horsemen. ​

Of course the text does say a couple times (Twice I think) that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. But the rest of the stry is clear that behind the scenes God was hardening his heart. So the account of Pharaoh gives us both the human and divine point of view, from our view he hardened his own heart, from God's pint of view, God did the hardening.

 

But why do you folks keep lumping all of mankind into one basket and labeling them all as God's own, the same thing you do in quoting the Law and the 10 commandments as God's standard of behavior for all mankind ?

In your statement you have TWO types of nations.
Israel, led by Moses (a type of Christ), whom Jehovah chose as His own among other peoples (not they choosing Jehovah).
Egypt (a type of the fallen world), led by Pharaoh (a type of Satan), whom JEHOVAH DID NOT NAME AS HIS OWN.
Then you have the bondage of God's people to sin and Satan and the picture of Him delivering His people out of this bondage through Christ, and the laws and standards by which they must live while on the way to the promised land (heaven).
God is not wooing the entire mankind to please, pretty please, follow Him, and then watching as people go to damnation because their choice is stronger than His.
He chose His people, covered their sins with His blood, and led them out of captivity.

 

I warned you.
Watch out for the Satanic methods.

 

:thumbs::applause:Amen. :godisgood:

 

I'm a glutton for punishment I guess.

I've seen Van's dishonesty and his absolute hatred for Calvinism and its adherents repeatedly in the last few weeks. At least Winman was able to joke with you. Van acts like his life mission is eradicating the Doctrines of Grace.

 

We can safely say that being "drawn" by the Father is analogous to the phrase "given" to the Son correct?

John 6:37 HCSB Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.​

Every single one that the Father gives to the Son will come. There is no possibility whatsoever of failure.

Again:

John 6:65 HCSB He said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father.”​

No one is able to come to the Son unless the Father has granted it. Since the Father must grant it, it is clearly not something that man can naturally do, nor is it something that all can do. Over and over Jesus is clear, we must be given to the Son by the Father, we must be drawn by the Father, we must have this granted to us by the Father, and those who receive this ALL, infallibly, come to the Son and are preserved by the Son.

John 6:45 HCSB It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me.​

This learning and listening to the Father is part of the drawing by the Father (v44). It is spiritual teaching and listening, in fulfillment of the prophets promise that all who will be in covenant relationship with God will personally know him and obey him.

So yes every single one who is drawn by the Father comes to the Son.

John 12:32 is regarding the openness of salvation to all peoples (as in people groups, nations) not just the Jews.

But how do you define foreknowledge? God's knowledge of the future because he looked ahead to see how things would turn out? (Which is really inconsistent with the word election to begin with) Or God's knowledge of the future by virtue of his eternal decree? The scripture presents foreknowledge in the second sense, never the first.

Romans 9 doesn't say that the vessels of wrath became hat way by their own choice. That totally turns the passage on it's head! They were vessels of wrath prepared for destruction from their creation.

Pharaoh had a real choice. Yes, but God also had already ordained what his choice would be. Pharaoh made a real choice, but God had before the foundation of the world ordained that choice and Pharaoh could not have chosen otherwise. There is tension there and I agree that we can't comprehend it.

Regarding Ravi, I would disagree that freewill is in scripture if you define it as libertarian freewill. That is nowhere in scripture. I would say choice and election are throughout scripture, and there is tension, not freewill and election.

 

I think there is a grave error in what you've written here. You say "..he could not completely and absolutely submit to God."

This is an absolutely inaccurate statement.

Just because Adam didn't "completely and absolutely" obey God does not mean that he could not do so. And, therein lies the difference between Adam and us... He didn't do so; he rebelled against God. We cannot do so because we are rebels.

Augustine argued (rightly) that before the Fall mankind was "Able to sin and able not to sin." After the Fall, mankind is "Not able not to sin." After coming to Christ, mankind is "Able to sin and able not to sin." And in the eternal state, mankind is "not able to sin."

But, to say that Adam could not obey God when he simply did not is a logically flawed argument, perhaps based in a misunderstanding of pre-Fall man.

The Archangel