Balaam showed No Free Will

[Quantrill]

You could be right.

"..(8) Note that Josephus never supposes Balaam to be an idolater, nor to seek idolatrous enchantments, or to prophesy falsely, but to be no other than an ill-disposed prophet of the true God; and intimates that God's answer the second time, permitting him to go, was ironical, and on design that he deceived (which sort of deception, by way of punishment for former crimes, Josephus never scruples to admit, as ever esteeming such wicked men justly and providentially deceived)....."
Josephus, Antiquities Book IV (earlyjewishwritings.com)

Thanks for that quote from Josephus. I wasn't aware of it.

Balaam is certainly one of those figures that is hard to come to grips with. I am so glad that God places men like him in the Bible, and does not hide them.

Quantrill

 

[Tsalagi]

Hey tulagi how’s it going?

The answer is no.

Adam was hiding and God had to search for him. Like hide and seek.

Adam was afraid because he was naked. Adam could see himself from outside of himself. In other words self reflection was not part of the original composition of Adam since it wouldn’t be necessary. Why self reflect if you are already a holy and perfectly righteous being?

Once sin entered Adam he died spiritually and lost all desire to know God, he became irretrievably lost.

Lagi, think about this, the hyper Calvinist’ are not commenting on Adam hiding himself. Why? Let me know if you give up. So I can give you my observation about it. Thx


Blessings

Adam "saw himself from outside himself" when he named the animals and realized he wasn't like them and saw there was not a "help meet for him." He "saw himself from outside himself" at the moment he first saw Ishshah, recognized her as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and named her after himself.

Adam's fear of judgment for disobedience (hence hiding) says nothing at all about losing his desire to know God. Not sure what Bible you're using but in mine when God called, Adam responded; he wasn't unable to hear and answer God's call. God didn't have to regenerate him before he could talk again. He didn't say, "Leave me alone, I have no desire to know you anymore." Adam said, "I was afraid and hid because I knew I was naked." He knew the fig leaves wouldn't cut it in the presence of God. That's not inability or lack of desire to know God; that is consciousness of disobedience, recognition of lack of righteousness, and consequent fear of impending judgment. Sin, righteousness, and judgment - sounds familiar (John 16:8). Adam confesses his sin to God, judgment is dispensed, and the couple then receives and accepts the sacrificial covering for their nakedness that God provides (Genesis 3:21).

I'm unconcerned what the "I am of Calvin" types have to say - or not say - on pretty much any topic. As a side note, "give up" in the first person singular or plural is utterly foreign and unknown to Marines.

 

[Sai]

Adam "saw himself from outside himself" when he named the animals and realized he wasn't like them and saw there was not a "help meet for him." He "saw himself from outside himself" at the moment he first saw Ishshah, recognized her as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and named her after himself.

Adam's fear of judgment for disobedience (hence hiding) says nothing at all about losing his desire to know God. Not sure what Bible you're using but in mine when God called, Adam responded; he wasn't unable to hear and answer God's call. God didn't have to regenerate him before he could talk again. He didn't say, "Leave me alone, I have no desire to know you anymore." Adam said, "I was afraid and hid because I knew I was naked." He knew the fig leaves wouldn't cut it in the presence of God. That's not inability or lack of desire to know God; that is consciousness of disobedience, recognition of lack of righteousness, and consequent fear of impending judgment. Sin, righteousness, and judgment - sounds familiar (John 16:8). Adam confesses his sin to God, judgment is dispensed, and the couple then receives and accepts the sacrificial covering for their nakedness that God provides (Genesis 3:21).

I'm unconcerned what the "I am of Calvin" types have to say - or not say - on pretty much any topic. As a side note, "give up" in the first person singular or plural is utterly foreign and unknown to Marines.

Blessings. You are free to think what you will and I have no hard feelings.

The reason why Adam (imo the hardest evidence for total depravity), is left out from the hyper Calvinist argument is because of their preconceived philosophical prejudice that the elect are saved prior to accepting the gospel.


Blessings

 

[Sai]

Blessings. You are free to think what you will and I have no hard feelings.

The reason why Adam (imo the hardest evidence for total depravity), is left out from the hyper Calvinist argument is because of their preconceived philosophical prejudice that the elect are saved prior to accepting the gospel.


Blessings

Man I’m good


Blessings

 

[Tsalagi]

Blessings. You are free to think what you will and I have no hard feelings.

The reason why Adam (imo the hardest evidence for total depravity), is left out from the hyper Calvinist argument is because of their preconceived philosophical prejudice that the elect are saved prior to accepting the gospel.

Well, if I were HC I would suggest that Adam and Eve were a unique case, and that their fall and restoration never interrupted their status as elect; but of course I'm not.

I am happy to point out that Genesis says nothing at all about Adam getting the gospel or accepting it, much less being elect. Solid biblical theology is built on clear Scriptural statements, not fuzzy human inferences. That's why I don't buy the manufactured notion of individual election to salvation prior to birth, nor do I think the Bible defines "total depravity" the way Calvinists do. Not one of the five points holds up to the demand for an unambiguous Scriptural statement of its truth.

 

[AustinC]

Well, if I were HC I would suggest that Adam and Eve were a unique case, and that their fall and restoration never interrupted their status as elect; but of course I'm not.

I am happy to point out that Genesis says nothing at all about Adam getting the gospel or accepting it, much less being elect. Solid biblical theology is built on clear Scriptural statements, not fuzzy human inferences. That's why I don't buy the manufactured notion of individual election to salvation prior to birth, nor do I think the Bible defines "total depravity" the way Calvinists do. Not one of the five points holds up to the demand for an unambiguous Scriptural statement of its truth.

You seem to hold your self-made theories on a high pedestal. Any reason for such high self-esteem? So far, you have provided weak exegesis.

 

[Sai]

Well, if I were HC I would suggest that Adam and Eve were a unique case, and that their fall and restoration never interrupted their status as elect; but of course I'm not.

I am happy to point out that Genesis says nothing at all about Adam getting the gospel or accepting it, much less being elect. Solid biblical theology is built on clear Scriptural statements, not fuzzy human inferences. That's why I don't buy the manufactured notion of individual election to salvation prior to birth, nor do I think the Bible defines "total depravity" the way Calvinists do. Not one of the five points holds up to the demand for an unambiguous Scriptural statement of its truth.

Obviously a strong thinker. But I don’t think you are as wise as you think you are. For example, you do not know what the unpardonable sin is nor can you find it in the prophets but I do, and can.

What do you think about my observation and guess about you. No hard feelings of course. No body else here can do these either.


Blessings

 

[Tsalagi]

You seem to hold your self-made theories on a high pedestal. Any reason for such high self-esteem? So far, you have provided weak exegesis.

Weak exegesis would be claiming that Jesus told His listeners to "strive to enter" into eternal salvation in Luke 13:24, thus having Jesus promote salvation through personal effort.

 

[Tsalagi]

Obviously a strong thinker. But I don’t think you are as wise as you think you are. For example, you do not know what the unpardonable sin is nor can you find it in the prophets but I do, and can.

What do you think about my observation and guess about you. No hard feelings of course. No body else here can do these either.

You seem to be changing the subject away from Adam; it appears you have no answer to the points I raised regarding the details of the biblical account. Crickets?

 

[Sai]

You seem to be changing the subject away from Adam; it appears you have no answer to the points I raised regarding the details of the biblical account. Crickets?

Why do you waste God’s time with your baby food dissertations on free will? This thread will end and you will be on the next one. Again.

As suspected, God has withheld from you the deeper things of his word because of your pride. Again, no hard feelings. Only observations.


Blessings

 

[AustinC]

Weak exegesis would be claiming that Jesus told His listeners to "strive to enter" into eternal salvation in Luke 13:24, thus having Jesus promote salvation through personal effort.

Is that what you taught from that verse. I cannot recall as you don't quote the passage.

 

[Tsalagi]

Why do you waste God’s time with your baby food dissertations on free will? This thread will end and you will be on the next one. Again.

As suspected, God has withheld from you the deeper things of his word because of your pride. Again, no hard feelings. Only observations.

So that's a "no" on dealing with the text of Genesis 3, substituting an excessive use of second person pronouns for looking at the content of the Word itself.
1 Timothy 6 regards, adios.

 

[Tsalagi]

Is that what you taught from that verse. I cannot recall as you don't quote the passage.

The passage (Luke 13:24) is in blue, meaning you can click to read it and quoting it is unnecessary. Our friend Van insists that Jesus is speaking of eternal salvation in that verse, and I have contested his assertion with extensive exegesis. I also provided an exegetical understanding of Adam hiding in the garden above, to which you offer no response. You accuse me of "weak exegesis" without citing any passage or example at all.

 

[Sai]

So that's a "no" on dealing with the text of Genesis 3, substituting an excessive use of second person pronouns for looking at the content of the Word itself.
1 Timothy 6 regards, adios.

Blessings

 

[AustinC]

The passage (Luke 13:24) is in blue, meaning you can click to read it and quoting it is unnecessary. Our friend Van insists that Jesus is speaking of eternal salvation in that verse, and I have contested his assertion with extensive exegesis. I also provided an exegetical understanding of Adam hiding in the garden above, to which you offer no response. You accuse me of "weak exegesis" without citing any passage or example at all.

What does it have to do with Balaam and free will?

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will close no sooner than 7pm EST / 4 pm PST

 

[Tsalagi]

What does it have to do with Balaam and free will?

You posted nine claims based on Adam in this thread, and when you finally got around to giving your supposed scriptural support for them I answered with exegetical rebuttals. Which one of these can you demonstrate to be "weak exegesis"? As I said, "I also provided an exegetical understanding of Adam hiding in the garden above [to Sai], to which you offer no response."

 

[AustinC]

You posted nine claims based on Adam in this thread, and when you finally got around to giving your supposed scriptural support for them I answered with exegetical rebuttals. Which one of these can you demonstrate to be "weak exegesis"? As I said, "I also provided an exegetical understanding of Adam hiding in the garden above [to Sai], to which you offer no response."

Tsalagi, I answered all nine.
The fact that you cannot accept my answer is purely your problem, not mine.

You answered an opinion about Adam in the garden. It's certainly your opinion and you are free to hold it.

 

[Tsalagi]

Tsalagi, I answered all nine.
The fact that you cannot accept my answer is purely your problem, not mine.

You answered an opinion about Adam in the garden. It's certainly your opinion and you are free to hold it.

Proof-texting is not persuasive, and your lack of response to the examination of the passages you cited indicates there are significant weaknesses in what you claim as scriptural support.

Funny how nobody who shares your view wants to talk about fallen Adam's unassisted response to God's call in the garden.

 

[AustinC]

Proof-texting is not persuasive, and your lack of response to the examination of the passages you cited indicates there are significant weaknesses in what you claim as scriptural support.

Funny how nobody who shares your view wants to talk about fallen Adam's unassisted response to God's call in the garden.

Tsalagi, you are now making excuses for your legalism and your demand of free will despite the fact that the Bible never teaches free will.
I adjure you to go read through the Bible once again.