Freed From The Arminian Camp

[William C]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
That is right Romanbear... God put a curse on everything that was living...

I wonder why God didn't mention "total inability" as one of the curses of sin when he was listing them out in Genesis?

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tyndale1946:
That is right Romanbear... God put a curse on everything that was living...

I wonder why God didn't mention "total inability" as one of the curses of sin when he was listing them out in Genesis? </font>[/QUOTE]He knew you guys wouldn't believe it.

 

[romanbear]

Hi Tyndale;

Why do you seem so bitter? Is it because you haven't been able to sell me Calvinism. Don't fret Tyndale I haven't been able to sell you Arminianism either.

Romanbear

 

[KenH]

romanbear,

You have the same problem Yelsew has - you do not understand the consequences to Adam when he sinned. He died spiritually. He didn't just stub his big toe or bruise his pinky finger. And the entire creation, including you and me, suffer because he died spiritually that day.

If the only consequences we must deal with are because of our own "personal" sins, then babies wouldn't die in the womb or in infancy through no fault of their own.

Just like the Bible states that Levi was in the loins of Abraham paying the tithe to Melchizedek, we all were in Adam's loins when he sinned. Just as Levi paid the tithe through the action of Abraham, we sinned through the action of Adam.

 

[Eric B]

That was simply an analogy based on lineage. The point was that the line of Levi was supposed to receive tithes, but in that case, Levi's line (represented by Abraham) paid tithes instead.
It is not saying Levi's soul was actually, personally present in Abraham. Since the seed does come from the ancestor, then a part of a person was there, but not the whole conscious entity in the sense that is being implied here, where people are "guilty" of Adam's individual sin.
(Perhaps this misinterpretation is where Origen got his "preexistence of souls" theory from)

 

[Frogman]

That was simply an analogy based on lineage. The point was that the line of Levi was supposed to receive tithes, but in that case, Levi's line (represented by Abraham) paid tithes instead.
It is not saying Levi's soul was actually, personally present in Abraham. Since the seed does come from the ancestor, then a part of a person was there, but not the whole conscious entity in the sense that is being implied here, where people are "guilty" of Adam's individual sin.
(Perhaps this misinterpretation is where Origen got his "preexistence of souls" theory from)

Being a consumate reader I was reading back a little; (sort of time travel ); and found this post that I some how missed, imagine that as if I don't have time to read everything everyone writes here on the B. This post, however, raised a question

EricB, are you saying here in essence that Adam is not the federal head, or representative of the human race.

Sometimes I wonder if in our rush to disprove the other side and perhaps be the one to do so, that we don't begin new topics before the old are settled. The problem with this is such that the mix is constantly churning and none are able to see clearly the broth that is therein. This then would prevent our discovering the meat of the word of God,would it not. Almost as if we are searching to choose our portion of meat, rather than to thrust into the pot and be settled on what our Sovereign God will provide as such our fare in this world below.

Does this not, from Scripture teach us that it is such action that causes the people to come to despise the Word of God? (Reference the children of Eli, or Samuel??...wait, I'll look it up, how could I be so thoughtless, you guys are wading through the same swirling pool of 'hunt & peck' doctrine, aren't ya...at least in the capacity of the BB. Ah...it was the 'evil sons of Eli...I Samuel 2, referenced vs. is found at 16.)

Just found this and thought I would push the point. Perhaps I read it wrong EricB, if so, forgive me. As it now stands, I do not understand it, which by the way, is not a very worthy accomplishment

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

(Wasn't 1588 the year of the Spanish Armada?)

[ April 07, 2003, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

[BobRyan]

God is sovereign.

I accepted Christ as my Savior many years ago and am a born-again believer fully participating in the New Covenant.

And then.... low and behold - I discover that the Sovereign God has sovereignly ordained that I expose the errors and flaws of Cavlinism as His Word shows Calvinism to clearly be error. (Except for that total depravity part).

So - are you really going to argue that "only calvinist are saved" as the author starting this thread seems to speculate?

No?

Then the sovereign God of all the universe has ordained that His OWN should - expose the flaws of Calvinism by showing how Calvinism directly contradicts His infallible - Word.

And in that case - we can all agree.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Frogman]

I am sorry for the laughies, I thought your post was perhaps in reference to the Spanish Armada.

At least in that case, I do agree.

(Except for that total depravity part).

Do you really believe this, but none other tenet? I don't believe I have ever met this before.

Bro. Dallas

[ April 07, 2003, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

[npetreley]

Well, God did not predestine that I would expose the unbiblical nature of arminianism and its errors. I do that of my own free will.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Well, God did not predestine that I would expose the unbiblical nature of arminianism and its errors. I do that of my own free will.

Nothing like a God led enterprize! Success is emminent because you did it your way!

 

[Eric B]

Being a consumate reader I was reading back a little; (sort of time travel ); and found this post that I some how missed, imagine that as if I don't have time to read everything everyone writes here on the B. This post, however, raised a question

There's been a flood of new threads, so stuff like this got lost on the bottom. I haven'e even been able to keep up lately.

EricB, are you saying here in essence that Adam is not the federal head, or representative of the human race.

Only not in the distorted sense I often see, where people are said to have somehow personally "chosen" sin "in" Adam. This is supposedly based on Romans 5, but there is nothing in the passage about "CHOICE". To say "chose sin in Adam" is to blatantly add to the text of scripture.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
Well, God did not predestine that I would expose the unbiblical nature of arminianism and its errors. I do that of my own free will.

Nothing like a God led enterprize! Success is emminent because you did it your way! </font>[/QUOTE]How interesting! So what you're saying is that anyone who thinks they are saved by their own free will choice are actually deceived and lost, because their choice was not God-led...

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Being a consumate reader I was reading back a little; (sort of time travel ); and found this post that I some how missed, imagine that as if I don't have time to read everything everyone writes here on the B. This post, however, raised a question

There's been a flood of new threads, so stuff like this got lost on the bottom. I haven'e even been able to keep up lately.

EricB, are you saying here in essence that Adam is not the federal head, or representative of the human race.

</font>[/QUOTE]

There's been a flood of new threads, so stuff like this got lost on the bottom. I haven'e even been able to keep up lately.

I know the feeling that is why I brought it back up, it took me til the time I thought to revisit it to do so.

Only not in the distorted sense I often see, where people are said to have somehow personally "chosen" sin "in" Adam. This is supposedly based on Romans 5, but there is nothing in the passage about "CHOICE". To say "chose sin in Adam" is to blatantly add to the text of scripture.

I am inclined to agree with you here, I do not see in Rom. 5 a choice to sin. But I do read in the following verses: 12; 14; 17, 18, and 19; not overlooking vs. 13 and others that teach that sin is not recognized sin by man without the Law.

However, the verses I posted do seem to teach that man is by nature and because of the fall of Adam, born dead (spiritually speaking).

In my opinion, it is at ch. 8.20 that would provide a stronger support for the argument that all men chose to sin in Adam.

Nonetheless, I beleive the truth is that we choose to sin because of the sin nature we have inherited from Adam. In this inheritance we, like the Levites in Abraham, were in Adam, who represented the whole of the human race.

His headship of the woman, then led in the fact that she is taken from him, and her deception is such given that if Adam were first deceived then the woman would thus have been following the headship of Adam in so sinning. The order is for the woman to have been deceived and Adam to make his choice to sin against God and thus be with the woman; in this choice the whole of mankind, represented by Adam falls into spiritual death (Rom. 5.12)

Hope that isn't too confusing.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
Well, God did not predestine that I would expose the unbiblical nature of arminianism and its errors. I do that of my own free will.

Nothing like a God led enterprize! Success is emminent because you did it your way! </font>[/QUOTE]How interesting! So what you're saying is that anyone who thinks they are saved by their own free will choice are actually deceived and lost, because their choice was not God-led... </font>[/QUOTE]NO! That is what you are saying that I say! We do not die on the cross for our sins, we do not rise again victorious over death, we cannot believe in ourselves unto eternal life, We had no part in the creation, we are not part of the triune godhead. Therefore we cannot under our own power redeem our selves. Furthermore we were created to be autonomous individuals. Each given the ability to hear the Word of God, and to choose for ourselves whether or not we will continue on the broad highway to hell or to submit our own lives unto Jesus who will take the submissive life unto himself and save it. You seem to think there is an element of doing it "my way" in what I said. But that is not possible, because there is nothing in what I said that I did, except believe that God did it all for men except making the choice. Just like coming up to a fork in the road where one must go one way or the other. The rule is you cannot stop forever at the fork, you must decide to take either way. Regardless of whether you take either way, but sit still at the fork in the road, you still choose by not choosing.

 

[Eric B]

Rom. 8:20 is about God subjecting creation to futility by God, who did it "in hope". This certainly parallels Rom 5, 11:4 & 32, etc., it still does not speak of "choice", but rather "unwilling".

Nonetheless, I beleive the truth is that we choose to sin because of the sin nature we have inherited from Adam. In this inheritance we, like the Levites in Abraham, were in Adam, who represented the whole of the human race.

That's basically the way I see it. Some seem to see it differently, though.

His headship of the woman, then led in the fact that she is taken from him, and her deception is such given that if Adam were first deceived then the woman would thus have been following the headship of Adam in so sinning. The order is for the woman to have been deceived and Adam to make his choice to sin against God and thus be with the woman; in this choice the whole of mankind, represented by Adam falls into spiritual death (Rom. 5.12)

Hope that isn't too confusing.

I always did wonder about the significance of the order of sin in the garden, especially since a NT scripture on women speaking in church bases its argument on this. How would things be different if he was deceived first?

 

[Frogman]

I always did wonder about the significance of the order of sin in the garden, especially since a NT scripture on women speaking in church bases its argument on this. How would things be different if he was deceived first?

It would have been equivalent to: "What if Adam and Eve had children prior to the fall?" Then each individual would of necessity have to 'fall' in order to possess the sin nature. Something along this line is what I (note the "I") think free-will thinkers hold to. Further, I believe in the sense that God did put man as head of the woman, if man had been deceived and had given of the woman, the significance would have been that the woman could then make the argument attempted among the Arminians that God was unjust and aribitrary in assigning a sin nature to her as well, when she was only following her head, the man.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but that is how I see it. As it stood, the woman blamed the serpent, who had no authority over her, and the man blamed the woman over whom, if he had been in his place to begin with, he did possess an authority.

Does that make sense?

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

[Eric B]

It would have been equivalent to: "What if Adam and Eve had children prior to the fall?" Then each individual would of necessity have to 'fall' in order to possess the sin nature. Something along this line is what I (note the "I") think free-will thinkers hold to.

That each individual today has to fall to possess the sin nature? There isn't anyone here who believes that. Unless of course free-will is seen as a denial of the fall into a sin nature

 

[Frogman]

This belief is implied, I think, in the argument that man is not born spiritually dead. From that kind of statement, especially provided by brother Bill, that men are born with the sin nature, but the ability to not sin, or to sin and this through the 'free-will' choice they possess. I do not believe they possess this choice, as I said earlier, because man had no descendants until after the fall, thus all are born spiritually dead.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Eric B:
That each individual today has to fall to possess the sin nature? There isn't anyone here who believes that.

I wouldn't be so quick to say so if I were you. Mr. Bill claims that we are not born spiritually dead. I don't recall who it was, but someone (Yelsew?) also said we do not need a savior until we commit our first sin. These are basically the same as saying we "fall" when we first sin, and become spiritually dead (becoming the natural man, or posessing the sin nature) as a result.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
I wouldn't be so quick to say so if I were you. Mr. Bill claims that we are not born spiritually dead. I don't recall who it was, but someone (Yelsew?) also said we do not need a savior until we commit our first sin. These are basically the same as saying we "fall" when we first sin, and become spiritually dead (becoming the natural man, or posessing the sin nature) as a result. [/QB]

I don't think so. I think they have a different view of sin nature than you, but they haven't said they don't believe in such a nature. You're putting words into their mouths.