2 Misconceptions

I said,

you said

Then you continued

Then you make this statement

Why do you insist on spinning what I say and misquoting me? Giving me credit for something I have not said? This bolded statement is a blatant fabrication or yours, not my words.

What I have said all along without variation it that man must believe in Jesus in order to receive salvation. Without belief in Jesus there is no salvation, for there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved. I have said that belief is an act of free will, and not something that is forced upon us. Once the Gospel message is heard, one must choose of one's own free will whether to accept it or reject it. I have said that the innate sin nature fights the truth, but the Gospel message delivered, then confirmed by the Holy Spirit causes one to accept or reject the message. Remember John 3:18, Jesus says that those who believe are not judged, but those who do not (choose to not) believe are condemned already by their unbelief. Jesus, who is God manifest in the flesh, leaves it up to the whosoevers that he created to make the choice of their own free will.

Riply would say at this point, "Believe it or Not!"

 

Yelsew,

You stated the above on Feb. 9, 2003 around 2.52 a.m.

Then you stated:

How did I spin and misquote? Check your posts, before you determine I have misquoted you.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

YES, it is universally known and understood that all men believe. The Fact of Believing is not what is important in the context of this topic. It is what man believes, and who man believes in that matters.

Your comment says that I said that All man believe the same thing or believe in the same person or deity, and is blatantly false.

 

Yelsew,

I did not spin anything. We were discussing the fall of Adam and you said Adam was deceived. The Bible says a I Tim. 2.14 he was not. You have disregarded that statement from scripture because in your mind it 'alienates' women. This is not the purpose of scripture. The truth is God has given a position of honor and glory to woman that we as men (political) creatures will never give, and that because we are sinners.

It is through woman that Christ is delivered into this world. The Bible does not degrade women, but exalts them.

Now, you have directed the topic from your disregard of scripture by claiming I added a spin to your comment. I didn't. If you don't believe scripture that is one thing, if you just want to argue that is another, whether you agree with me or not, you must agree with scripture or your argument is with God and not me.

Bro. Dallas

 

You say that I have disregarded the statement from Paul to Timothy. and that I think it is not politically correct to implicate a woman. How is it then that you know what is in my mind when I have not expressed my mind on that subject? You are a builder of strawmen!

So let me do so. I say that Adam was not the first deceived, but he was just as deceived because he ate the prohibited fruit in the face of the commandment to not do so. He was deceived into thinking that it was safe to do so. Deception is deception, it need not be beguiling to be deceiving.

And this is mundane to the topic?

It is your opinion that I do not believe scripture, but I don't recall anyone appointing you the one to make such judgement against me. Yes, you spin what I say every chance you get so there is nothing new there. If we believed just alike we would not be wasting our time with each other. We don't, so we do!

[ February 10, 2003, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Still,

1 Tim. 2.14 says Adam was not deceived, but the woman. On this I base my decision to think you are disregarding scripture. I don't think the woman had to deceive the man, I believe Adam saw the woman did not die and he believed God to be a lier.

If Adam had been in his place over the woman she may not have been deceived, but no matter, we cannot deny scripture says the woman was deceived and the man was not.

You are right we are wasting alot of time. Still, you must realize your argument is not with me on this, but with the Word of God. It is plain that this is written in the Word.

I have built no strawmen, not even at Halloween do I do this. Where the Bible states something and you disregard it as you did because it is Paul's writing and you perceive it to be used to belittle women you do so because you have a small view of the Grace of God and a bigger view of man than of God's word.

Answer why you won't accept 1 Tim. 2.14 as valid in stating the woman was decieved and the woman was not.

I do not want to spend time arguing like this, but you not only disagree with me, you simply agree with scripture only when it supports your view.

Bro. Dallas

 

Once again, this is your spin on what I said. I did not say that Eve deceived Adam. I said that Adam was deceived. That is quite a difference. Eve was deceived by the serpent, Adam was deceived by the appearance of safety. Remember, God told him that if he ate of the fruit that he would surely die. Eve ate and she remained alive. Therefore he concluded that since she ate and lives, it was probably safe for him to eat and live. The way I read Genesis, they were together with the serpent, they both heard the deceiving words, Eve acted on her conclusions, and Adam followed suit. Adam did not act to stop Eve from disobeying God, so one can build the strawman that Adam was weak and could not control the situation...blah, blah, blah. If Adam was not deceived, he would not have eaten of the fruit. He compounded his own deception when God confronted him, by blaming the woman. Of course it is true that Eve was the one who picked the fruit, ate and then handed the fruit to Adam. Adam did not have to eat the fruit, but he too was deceived into thinking it was OK, so he did eat the fruit in disobedience to God.

The fact remains that the act of disobedience in which Eve and Adam took the fruit and ate of it was sin. Both were deceived and both sinned, in spite of what Paul told Timothy. If any discrepancy exists, it it in your mind and not mine. It is not the presence of temptation that is sin, it is succombing to temptation of sin. You refuse to acknowledge the role of humanity in all of this.

Once again you spin my thoughts I have not given you any reason whatever to claim that I perceive it to be used to belittle women. Those are your words for yourself, because that is what you think on the matter or you would not have brought it up. Your reveal your own prejudices.

Well this is a "damned if you do-damned if you don't statement"! Assuming you are speaking of the same woman for both conditions it is impossible to give you a reply?

However, recognizing that your statment contains a minor error, In the Context of 1 Tim 2:1-15 Paul is instructing Timothy that women should not be preachers or teachers, and he uses the text of Genesis 3:6 to "prove" that women are susceptable to beguiling desception.

Because I believe that Paul, being part of a male dominated society, did not understand that men are just as easily deceived, I recognize it is Paul making the case against women, why don't you?

 

I meant the woman was decieved and the man was not.

Either way, you are saying you don't believe I Tim. 2.14 to be Divinely inspired, because you believe the prejudice of Paul is directing his hand and not the Holy Spirit.

Go back and read your scriptures from the beginning, it is man who was created, and woman was taken from man to be a help meet to him.

Nowhere do we have a statement that Adam and Eve were together at the time of the deception; In Genesis 3 the conversation which leads to the deception of Eve is carried on between the serpent and Eve, Adam is not mentioned until after Eve eats of the fruit. Then in vs. 6 we read:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, (note: she chose to do this, before she knew sin), and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.'

That in parenthesis above is added by me, I say that so you know that I know it is not in the Bible, but the Bible did say "she took of the fruit thereof and did eat. Next it says 'and gave unto her husband with her and he did eat' no where does it say that she engaged in deceptive language or conversation, nor that the serpent did this with Adam. Yes Adam did reason within himself that God had lied and that he, as Eve, would not die, based on his experience that Eve did not die, so, based on the knowledge base Adam brings to the situation, rather than just believing God, he believes that which he sees or maybe better the evidence of what is in front of him, namely that Eve did not suffer death, so neither would he. All this reason to choose comes from a man who has no experience with sin, has no sinful nature, but has only a commandment from God his creator to not eat lest he die, instead of simply believing, this man counts God as untrue because of that which is naturally proven to him.

Then in Scripture at 1 Tim. 2.14 Paul records that Adam was not deceived, but the woman. Yes, he uses this to show why women are not to be in a position of authority, and because this is Biblical it is still authoritative today, regardless of society would tell us.

The argument that Paul lived in a time dominated by males is of no use; because the same can be used to argue that the writing of Scripture is from the point of view of the Jewish nation, thus ultimately denying all that is in the Bible; from the beginning to the end, including the Christ of God, because it is from the chosen nation of Israel from which Christ came. Your logic (based on humanistic philosophy) ultimately will permit us to disregard all scripture because of its bigotted and prejudiced nature.

Attack me as prejudiced if you wish, that will not solve your problem accepting scripture only if it fits into the humanistic scope of philosophical thought.

Bro. Dallas

 

Yep. Here's the way it went down (I posted something similar in another slightly related thread):

Adam heard what the serpent had to say and figured, "So is this scaly dude telling the truth or lying? I could take a bite, myself, to see, but that could be risky. I know what I'll do. I'll let the chick take a bite first and then see if she croaks. If she does, no problem, I've got more ribs. If she doesn't kick the bucket then I guess the fruit is safe for me to eat, too. Yeah, that's the ticket. You go girl - take a bite!"

Sure this information is completely missing from Genesis, and sure it totally contradicts 1 Timothy. But it's such a compelling and credible account that one can only conclude that it confirms another scriptural axiom: "Let speculation be true, and all scripture a liar." (Strictly speaking, the verse says let God be true and every man a liar, but God and speculation are roughly equivalent, as are scripture and men, so it means the same thing.)

 

I accept the role of humanity in choosing from his own will, while in a created condition of sinlessness, to disobey God. I refuse to accept that man can take that sinful will and call it free and then choose to obey God.

Just thought I would clarify to you what I accept regarding humanity and what I do not. The role of humanity is and has been since the fall, that of one needing a Saviour. He has been cast in that role and must play it as God has written it.

If we assume God turns man from his sinfulness and to Himself in Godly sorrow and repentance is something accomplished only against the will of man, then we put a greater emphasis on man than what God intended. The starring role is the man Jesus, the one mediator between God and man.

Note the Bible says God was in Him reconciling the world unto himself. Why does it not say God was in Christ so that the world could reconcile itself unto Him?

Because this is not the way God established things, but He established them to be performed through His Will and not the fallen, depraved and sinful will of man.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

npetreley,

I haven't been following this post for awhile but wanted to pick up where we left off. If it's too late, perhaps I'll bring this up later.

Rergarding my comments on Colossians 1:15 and 2:9 (that Adam only knows God via the Son) you said,

To confirm I understand you, you're saying there are two ways to know God. Adam, in his pre-fallen state, was able to know God directly without any mediator. Yet in his fallen state and thus all mankind after him, he can only know God via a mediator, the Son. Is this a correct summary of you're beliefs?

This is in the context of my post dated February 04, 2003 07:32 PM

 

russell55,

I'm not following this statement. It sounds like you're saying that 1) unrighteousness did not exist before the fall and 2) therefore there was not a necessity for imputed righteousness. I think this comes from you're next statement regarding if Adam is the custodian of his own righteousness;

To these things I would ask,

1. Who initiated Adam's relationship with God? God or Adam?
2. Once initiated, who maintained it? GOd or Adam?

If you answer "Adam" to either of the above, I would ask what you believe about a person's relationship with God today. Is it initiated or maintained any differently?