OSAS but yet again

Charlie try not to be offended this is just an example - and completely hypothetical

Ive decided to have you killed mainly because youve called me Arminian and Im not - Im just not Calvinist - whether I do it myself or hire someone else Im not extremely particular - but for the sake of this hypothetical scenario Ive hired someone else to do it

God has decreed that murder is wrong - I have in this false avenue - decided to kill you - I have defied God - whats worse I skipped church to do it - defying keeping the Sabbath - I have committed sin

(this was just an example)

Im trying to get this point through to you - sin is man constantly listening to what God says - and giving Him the finger.

Sin is DEFYING God - Sin is resisting God - And guess what we succeed at it - look at Israel in the desert - but you know what God even in being resisted - even in being defied still manages to win - You know how He wins - He kicked Adam out of Eden - He makes Israel wander for forty years - He puts Satan into Hell - He provided the opportunity for universal salvation.

Lets take that banking example again

Bill is the bank president, and he has discovered that Fred a lowly teller has been embezzling funds.
Bill has the responsibility and authority to fire Fred - instead he calls Fred into his office and tells Fred that he knows what Fred has been up to; and he pulls out his chequebook and writes Fred a cheque for the amount Fred has embezzled from Bills own personal funds. Bill tells Fred that an audit is coming sometime, and that all Fred has to do is cash the cheque from Bill and use that money to pay back the bank, and all would be forgiven. Fred has several choices - Fred can pay back the money using Bills cheque - Fred can try to pay back usig his own funds, but since Fred already spent the money there is no way he will ever be able to - unless he gives up everything - Fred can also take Bills cheque and make a run for it - Fred can bluff his way out of it - since only a really intense audit will show that Fred was embezzling - and the company has never done such an deep audit before.

Fred hasnt been saved from his crime - but you notice that Bill has provided the means and the way for salvation from that crime - Fred ie mankind has choices to make....

Fred hasnt become more sovereign then Bill - Bill still has all the power - Bill if he so desired could revoke salvation by cancelling the cheque

But Bill loves Fred

I dont know how anyone cant understand the limitless grace, but I know somehow - some way - you wont understand it Charlie - But I pray that at least if you cant someone else will.

 

Sularis,

Please understand that we are looking at this from a totally different perspective. I would suggest that your view is the one that limits God's limitless grace.

My understanding of scripture is that when God saves someone, they are truly saved. When Christ went to the cross, He did not die for a plan or opportunity, He actually died for sinners. And on the cross, those for whom He died WERE SAVED. Not possibly, maybe , might be saved, if they will agree to it. His grace is so limitless that He even gives us a new heart and the faith needed to trust Him. Truly it is Amazing Grace.

But your view is different, and my desire is to show you a greater grace that God has for His adopted children.

You see Christ's death that is not capable of itself to save anyone. That man in His fallen state is required to do that which He is incapable of doing, choose God. Such a death would be in vain, for THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS GOD. This idea is contrary to scripture. Scripture is full of God choosing people and nations and saving those who do not deserve to be saved. Thankfully, for all of us only deserve one thing, eternal seperation with God, that torment called Hell.

Regardless, please do not take this as a personal attack, only a concern for a doctrine that I consider wrong.

Regarding the examples, I do not find them very helpful. We can dream up whatever allegory fits our needs, but the Truth is the Gospel. Boy, I know that this sounds sanctimonious, but I do not see much profit in leaving scripture to talk about hypothetical illustrations.

Charlie

[ December 20, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Charlie T ]

 

I’m new to this forum but am well acquainted with the Arminian/Calvinist debate. I hope it’s okay if I just jump in.

I believe no one can “lose” anything that God has given. To be persuaded otherwise, in my mind, suggests God is not Divine, and thus, not God. Yet I am not convinced that this premise warrants the theology of unconditional election. For many, however, “Perseverance” and “Choice” are mutually exclusive. For those who hold to this thought, I’d be interested in answers to the following.

Apparently for many, “choice” implies “man’s work”. Why? To me, “choice” does not indicate man is a co-worker in defining and/or completing the work of God.

What about “perseverance” and Adam? If you believe in perseverance along with unconditional election, why wasn't Adam “kept” (persevered) in his original state?

 

4study,

I think that this is a good question. I am still pondering some, as us Bubbas ain't to quick.

But, it seems to me that Adam was righteous based on his sinlessness. When he was no longer sinless, then his standing changed.

We are righteous in Christ's sinlessness alone. Thus it is not dependent on what we do but what He does.

Just a thought.

Charlie

 

Thanks for the response Charlie T.

I have many questions too of which I don’t have an answer. These however are interesting to me in the sphere of Calvinism because I’m intrigued how people of that persuasion may weave them into their theology.

I’m not sure I understand your comment concerning Adam and righteousness in the light of perseverance. Regardless, I can state my question again in terms of it to continue the conversation.

Why did God not keep Adam in a sinless, righteous state if He is a God who “preserves the saints” (Perseverance of the Saints)? Did Adam have choice?

 

4study,

I think it importatnt to understand Perseverence in the light of the nature of our relationship. The Effectual Call puts the foundation of our relationship on God and God alone. We are saved by God's grace through the gift of faith. Therefore, as long as that foundation remains firm, the salvation is firm. And God's faithfulness is as firm as it gets.

Adam's relationship with God was based on his sinlessness. As long as he was sinless, he was in covenant with God... the covenant of works. But, indeed, Adam had the choice to stay obedient or to sin. He ahd a choice to the degree that no other man has had since then.

Is this a better explanation?

Charlie

 

As already stated above - the apostles were free to write to church without assuming that they could only write to the "elect" within the congregation - and so they do in fact address the point to those who are "spiritually" - poor, blind and naked - unclothed wiht the righteousness of Christ.

The idea that all readers in a church would need to be the "elect" if Paul or John writes a letter to that church and describes it as spiritually "poor, blind and naked" - is not supportable in scripture. Neither is the assumption that "spiritually poor blind and naked"
is a "description of the new birth".

Pointing that out is not a result of being "upset" - I am simply observing the point. I hope you don't mind.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thanks Charlie T. That's the explanation I assumed but had never heard from anyone before. This gives me a little more insight now. It also leads me to some other questions of which I'm unsure if this is the right thread to continue them. Nevertheless, to keep the trail going...

Do you believe Adam had what is called here, "free will", or is your comment "Adam had a choice to the degree that no other man has had since then" a description of a special case?

IMO, "perserverance" is something we believe about who God is while "choice" is something we believe about who human beings are. Specifcally, nature. "Persererance" being the nature of God and "choice" (or lack thereof) the nature of a human being. From my view, the nature (or essence) of something doesn't change. When speaking of human beings, it seems Calvinism teaches "choice" is not within the nature of a human being becase "choice" changes (i.e. If I understand the Calvinism theology it would say, Adam had choice but when he disobeyed, he no longer had choice).

I'm wondering, then, what the nature of a human being is to someone who holds to Calvinism? Perhaps to be more specific, what was Adam's nature? Keep in mind my perspective here, that nature doesn't change. I'm sure there are some who would debate this premise alone.

 

One of the issues regarding "choice" is the Romans 3:9-20 statement about our sinful nature -- that all flesh "all mankind" - not merely "some of all types of mankind" is depraved and chooses (makes choices) for evil. That "Not One" seeks after God - in the "Choices" that they make.

But even Calvinism concedes that the John 12:32 "Drawing of All mankind to God" - enables what the sinnful nature disables by way of choice (for those that are drawn).

Of course 5 point Calvinists choke on that "All Mankind" aspect and prefer to think of it as "the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7 on the Narrow Road."

And there is at least "One Calvinist" on this board that is toying with the idea that God is not selecting out those whom He chooses to save - but rather CREATING some for Heavenn and most "(the many of MAtt 7 on the WIDE road) for Hell.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Charlie we disagree as to what is more powerful

I dont see a strong man coming to your house - kicking down your door and at the barrel of gun forcing you to labour for your own good as more powerful then

Then that same strong man coming to your door, and knocking, and simply asking - not touching you at all - not forcing you

What is the more spectacular

By no means other then those of love, God drew you, overcame your burden of sin, overcame your bias towards sin, overcame your own natural objections, and convinced you to choose to come with Him

Oh what Love divine all loves excelling!

 

BobRyan,

To me, everything discussed in this forum all goes back to what one believes about Adam's nature. Considering his nature, what changed, if anything, when he disobeyed? What was his nature before and/or after the fall? Did he have choice? Did he not? Was his righteousness inherent or imputed? Etc., etc.

I think most of us view Rom 3:9-20 as a description of the human race AFTER THE FALL. This is due to the mainstream view of human nature. It says Adam was a different human being before the fall than he was after the fall. Why do we believe this?

Rom 3:23 applies BEFORE THE FALL.

 

It would be hard to argue that Romans 3 is a description of Adam before the fall. That he had no inclination at all toward his maker. That he was "made" sinful. As Jeremiah 17 says "The heart is decietfully wicked".

So Romans 3:9-20 must be a post-fall scenario and the slavery that we see in Eph 2:1-6 and Romans 6 must apply to post-fall humanity alone.

The "total depravity" concept is legitimate - but the "Drawing of All mankind" John 12:32 act of God - "enables what depravity disables".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Romans 3 is not something that is before or after the fall. It is one small part of a very long argument. If one does not keep that in mind, one is likely to make gross errors of interpretation -- Like the one you implied in the majority thread, which used Romans 2 to imply that we are made righteous through the merit of works:

Like I said, it's a part of a long argument. Romans 2:13 is part of his argument that establishes the validity of the righteous requirements of God and the law. He adds the information that being Jew doesn't buy you anything, because hearing the law isn't what counts. Doing it is what matters. Then he goes on to explain that NOBODY is able to do it.

Well, so much for the interpretation that it tells us anything about meriting salvation. So what's the purpose of the law, then?

And so on. It's a great book if you look at it as a whole book instead of a collection of sound bites.

[ December 24, 2002, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

BobRyan,

I’m not suggesting Romans 3, in its entirety, is a “description of Adam before the fall”. Rom. 3:23, however, specifically, in my view, applies to Adam BEFORE and not necessarily AFTER the fall. This is due to my view of Adam’s nature. Yes, Rom. 3:23 applies to ALL MANKIND. But Adam is included in ALL MANKIND and we must decide if this applies to him before or after the fall.

This all ties into what we believe about “total depravity”, “choice”, “perseverance”, etc., etc. Our preconceived ideas about Adam, the Garden of Eden, and The Fall, all play into how we see ourselves and God. Especially our concept of SIN ways heavily on how we interpret scripture as well, but that is another discussion.

 

Romans 3:23 says "All Have Sinned and continue to fall short of the glory of God"

When God made Adam - on the 6th day He said that all was "good".

Paul states in 1Tim 2:13-15 that it was NOT Adam that first sinned but Eve was first decieved and then fell into sin - not Adam.

Romans 5 tells us that through Adam's "ONE" sin -ONE act of rebellion - all of us "became" sinners and fell under the penalty of death.

None of that works if Adam was "created" as one who "had sinned" from the start.

Only after his "one sin" does God come to the Garden and say "He has BECOME like one of us knowing good from evil" and then God casts mankind out of the garden "lest he should eat of the tree of life and live forever" - an immortal sinner could THEN have been promoted by eating from the tree of life - but eating BEFORE that point did nothing to perpetuate sin forever - since they were not sinning - and had not sinned until that point.

-----------------------------------

So lets assume for a moment that Adam "had not sinned" at his creation - but was absolutely perfect.

Lets assume that not until Eve was decieved did SHE sin.

Lets assume that not until after Eve's sin - did Adam sin.

Lets assume that the fall of mankind happened at that point and that through that ONE act of sin - all became "depraved" as we find it in Romans 3:9-20.

What is it that you are proposing as a "problem" with that scenario? Clearly Adam and Eve were "born with Choice" and clearly they eventhually chose sin.

IF we go with the idea that our natures are corrupt and that we will continue to choose sin - then only by the "Drawing of God" could we expect anything other than rebellion.

But God Does "Draw All Mankind" unto Him John 12:32

And God "Convicts the World of Sin and Righteousness and Judgment" John 16.

And God comes as the light 'not just of the few' but of the "world" to "Enlighten EVERY man" John 1.

God stands outside the door of each heart "and knocks so that if ANY man hear my voice and open the door..." Rev 3:21

God "enables" for all of mankind - the choice that total depravity would take from us were it not for this global - "all mankind" - 'every man' ministry of God.

What problem do you see with that?

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 24, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

What if you were actually right? What if Romans 2 was really making the case that perfect sinnless obedience is the only way to heaven (without faith in Christ, the New Birth and repentance - turning from sin).

What if using that focus and context - Paul was trying to show nothing but failure so he could make his point that all are condemned and need a savior as he does in Romans 3?

Certainly I would go for that in a split second because that is exactly what I believe. Attempting to gain heaven by simply being sinless is a pointless exercise. All have sinned and all are in need of a savior.

Of course then Paul "could not" present "successful examples" in the Romans 2 view but must show that only failure results.

-----------------

Now lets turn from the "what if" scenario and see what is actually IN Romans 2.

I Starts with the context of the "mercy" of God "leading us to repentance".

Then - IN that context of grace and mercy and repentance of sin - we see the good succeeding cases withing BOTH the Jew and Gentile groups "inheriting eternal life" through perserverance - as well as the failing cases in BOTH Jew and Gentil groups.

HE does not present "ONLY failure" - but also shows success.

The in the worst possible scenario for your proposal he gives the very specific example of Romans 2:13-16 of a gentile without any scripture at all who SHOWS the New Covenant promise of the Law Written on the heart EVEN without benefit of scripture - and there he delcares SUCCESS in the future judgment of Christ - AND he explicitly declares this to BE the Gospel message.

Romans 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. [/quote]

The Gospel, repentance, grace, obedience AND rebellion are ALL included in the Romans 2 scenario.

In Romans 3 - Paul shows how the problem of total depravity and works-without-faith plays into that established foundation with the result in Romans 3:31 that comes back to the Romans 2 point - "Do we make void the Law of God through faith - God forbid! - In fact we Establish it!"

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 24, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

BobRyan,

It’s all about terminology. “Good” in what way?

I can remember from childhood being taught that Gen. 1 was God’s “perfect paradise”, Gen. 2, His “perfect creature”, and Gen. 3, “something went wrong”. I was further taught that everything since Gen. 3 is God’s plan to restore man into his original place/state. “Good” with this theology would easily bring the idea that Adam was “perfect”. I think we’re also taught that SIN is “evil”, “disgusting”, “ugly”, “wicked”, etc., etc. So of course we say that Adam was “sinless”. However, SIN, IMO, does not reference immorality, but simply means “missing the mark”. With this in mind, if we say Adam was “good” in the sense of being “sinless”, it means he inherently “hit the mark”. Are we sure we want to say that of him? Was Adam inherently righteous and holy? For me, the only one inherently “sinless”, “righteous”, or “holy”, is GOD. Anyone else must be imputed with these Divine attributes.

Again, it’s about terminology. If you believe SIN is an act, then yes, none of it works. Does SIN include thought? Does SIN include potential?

The “problem” I see is an inconsistent God.

Calvinistically speaking, the chain of events would be this; Adam is created with “choice”, Adam “loses choice”, God, having already elected him for the new birth, restores “choice”. To me that’s terribly inconsistent.

If Adam has “choice” before the fall but doesn’t have it after the fall, it means he lost something that he was created with that God must restore. Can Adam lose it again? Perhaps “choice” wasn’t Adam’s to lose. Maybe God took it from him. But why would God take “choice” from Adam and then restore it? If human “choice” is something God is going to take and restore, what is going to happen in eternity?

IMO, God deals consistently with every human being. From creation to the end of salvation, every human being is under the same, consistent process. In that sense, I don’t see Adam as a special case.

 

Your statements supporting Calvinism are flawed

as based on a false premise that I didnt even knew existed

Where does it say Adam lost his power of choice

He gained a nature - that biased him - crippled him - but he did not lose anything - If in fact Adam had lost choice then why did God act to prevent a choice from occuring if Adam no longer had a choice - and in fact acted again in a similar manner at the tower of Babel

Choice has never been lost - fallen Adam is no different then you

 

Then why do you fail to see that this is exactly what the text is saying?

The Gospel, repentance, grace, obedience AND rebellion are ALL included in the Romans 2 scenario.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't understand how you think to squeeze the whole Gospel into Romans 2. Do you honestly not see the thrust of what Paul is saying here? He is laying the groundwork for the validity of the law, and making sure the reader understands that the Jews and Gentiles will both be rightfully judged by the law whether or not they've formally received it. He explains that Gentiles cannot use the excuse that they haven't received the formal law, since God gave them a conscience that convicts and approves of their behavior as they live. And one reason there won't be any excuse is because God knows and will judge every thought. When those thoughts are exposed, (when God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus), they will be a witness for and against the person.

The fact that some people give in to the better side of their conscience once in a while is wonderful, but nowhere does the Bible say this contributes to their salvation. Romans 2 hasn't even gotten to the issue of salvation yet.

I think what I find the most remarkable, however, is that you will die defending the use of the word "all" in contexts like "draw all men", yet you seem to think some people can be saved by works because of a nebulous phrase like "their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" but in spite of the painfully clear "no one" in the verse "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law"

I don't know how much more clear one can get than this:

 

That is a true statement. But pre-fallen Adam did not have a sin nature - therefore, he was different than you.