Grace: potential or actual II

[Aaron]

Well, the scriptures state that the wages of sin IS death. W/O sin, there could have been no way for Adam dying. God told Adam that if/when he ate of that tree, he would SURELY die. If Adam' heart was corrupted pre-fruit ingestion...[snip arbitrary assumption]...then he must have sinned outside the parameters God had already set.

Again, you're only thinking of sin as something one does, and you're completely ignoring Adam's heart.

Adam and Eve new they didn't have to as far as actually pick the fruit and ingest it. Neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. To this the words of Christ also agree. He who commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree in the midst of the Garden, also commands us not to kill or to commit adultery. In Matthew 5 where Christ establishes the true force and scope of God's commandments to be directives also to the thoughts and feelings of the heart, where anger is judged as murder and lust as adultery (because that is what they are), it becomes absolutely indisputible that all Adam had to do was desire the fruit, and he had eaten in his heart.

Now, again, what sin did Adam commit to cause corruption OUTSIDE of eating the fruit? Or better yet, where did his sinning come from? God? Satan putting it there, or Adam's failing to heed God's command(rebellion)?

As I said, until you see the validity of the premise, it serves no purpose to identify the corrupting influence.

 

[convicted1]

Again, you're only thinking of sin as something one does, and you're completely ignoring Adam's heart.

Adam and Eve new they didn't have to as far as actually pick the fruit and ingest it. Neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. To this the words of Christ also agree. He who commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree in the midst of the Garden, also commands us not to kill or to commit adultery. In Matthew 5 where Christ establishes the true force and scope of God's commandments to be directives also to the thoughts and feelings of the heart, where anger is judged as murder and lust as adultery (because that is what they are), it becomes absolutely indisputible that all Adam had to do was desire the fruit, and he had eaten in his heart.

As I said, until you see the validity of the premise, it serves no purpose to identify the corrupting influence.

So "sin is what brings corruption" is arbitary assumption? There is no validity to this premise. They ate, they died. Just as God warned them.

 

[Amy.G]

Again, you're only thinking of sin as something one does, and you're completely ignoring Adam's heart.

Adam and Eve new they didn't have to as far as actually pick the fruit and ingest it. Neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. To this the words of Christ also agree. He who commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree in the midst of the Garden, also commands us not to kill or to commit adultery. In Matthew 5 where Christ establishes the true force and scope of God's commandments to be directives also to the thoughts and feelings of the heart, where anger is judged as murder and lust as adultery (because that is what they are), it becomes absolutely indisputible that all Adam had to do was desire the fruit, and he had eaten in his heart.

As I said, until you see the validity of the premise, it serves no purpose to identify the corrupting influence.

Jesus was rebuking self righteous sinners, not "good" people as Adam was before he ate the fruit. Adam did not have a corrupt heart because God created him "very good". Corrupt and very good are antithetical. They cannot co exist.

 

[Aaron]

When did David become guilty of adultery with Bathsheba? When he lusted after her from his rooftop, or when he took her into his bed chamber?

 

[Amy.G]

When did David become guilty of adultery with Bathsheba? When he lusted after her from his rooftop, or when he took her into his bed chamber?

Being tempted is not sin. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin.

Adam's heart was right with God. He had no sin until he ate the fruit and broke God's ONE command. God did not tell him he couldn't look at the tree or touch it, that was Satan's twisting and adding to scripture. The only command God gave Adam was to not EAT the fruit. He was sinless until he ate and his eyes were opened. You are claiming his eyes were opened before he ate. That is not what the bible says.

 

[Aaron]

Christ said to lust after a woman is to commit adultery, and I didn't read anywhere that He consulted with Amy about it before issuing the statement.

David was guilty of the act the moment it entered his heart.

In every case in this thread where a straitforward maxim of Christ has been cited, you've argued with it and attempted to redefine it. What does that imply about your position?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"You can't just claim something and offer no scriptural proof for it and not expect us to question it."


OK Explain the trinity then & make sure you provide ample scriptural proof.

 

[convicted1]

When did David become guilty of adultery with Bathsheba? When he lusted after her from his rooftop, or when he took her into his bed chamber?

Major difference there Brother. It's not a sin to see a naked person, but if you don't turn your head, walk away and ask God to help you, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish. It was a choice that David made(same as was with Adam), and he paid dearly for that choice. David sent for her, so the sin wasn't in what he saw, but what he did. If David would have walked away, he would have not caused Uriah to be murdered(basically that's what took place), the sword to be with him all the way to the grave, and grieve the loss of his son.


Adam, in the Garden, had no outside influence(other than God) until the serpent(satan) came along. He deceived Eve, she ate, she gave to Adam, and the rest, as they say, is history. Adam was perfect/upright before the fruit, and to state otherwise, is unbiblical.

 

[convicted1]

"You can't just claim something and offer no scriptural proof for it and not expect us to question it."


OK Explain the trinity then & make sure you provide ample scriptural proof.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


These passages prove the Trinity, three in one.

 

[Aaron]

Major difference there Brother. It's not a sin to see a naked person, but if you don't turn your head, walk away and ask God to help you, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish. It was a choice that David made(same as was with Adam), and he paid dearly for that choice. David sent for her, so the sin wasn't in what he saw, but what he did. If David would have walked away, he would have not caused Uriah to be murdered(basically that's what took place), the sword to be with him all the way to the grave, and grieve the loss of his son.


Adam, in the Garden, had no outside influence(other than God) until the serpent(satan) came along. He deceived Eve, she ate, she gave to Adam, and the rest, as they say, is history. Adam was perfect/upright before the fruit, and to state otherwise, is unbiblical.

No difference at all. And you didn't answer the question. When did David become guilty of adultery with Bathsheba? When he lusted after her from his rooftop or when he took her into his bed chamber.

Psst! I know how Christ would answer. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

As you see folks, Calvinism understands scripture in the EXACT REVERSE of what it says. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. The Bible says when sin is finished it brings forth death.

Calvinism says the opposite. Calvinism says you are born dead and this death brings forth sin.

The exact opposite EVERY time.

 

[Aaron]

In contact with the UFO's again, are we?

 

[Aaron]

Here's the conclusion of the matter. Adam's choice to sin was not free. He was corrupted, and could do no other. There is no such thing as "Arminian free will."

 

[quantumfaith]

Here's the conclusion of the matter. Adam's choice to sin was not free. He was corrupted, and could do no other. There is no such thing as "Arminian free will."

Whew, glad that is finally settled.

 

[Winman]

In contact with the UFO's again, are we?

Aaron, God putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not a temptation, but an opportunity to freely choose God. Love requires choice. You are likely married, do you want your wife to love you because she chooses to freely do so, or would you force her and compel her to love you? If God had not put that forbidden tree in the garden, there would have been no choice.

God in his foreknowledge knew what man would do, and had already provided a way to prove his love for us, not as perfect persons, there is no difficulty in that. But he loved us when we chose to reject him and turn from him. Now, that is real love.

God has already chosen to love all of us, he is simply waiting for us to choose to love him. Without free will and choice there is no love.

It was free will that enabled Satan and all of us to sin, but it was necessary, else there could be no real love.

 

[JesusFan]

As you see folks, Calvinism understands scripture in the EXACT REVERSE of what it says. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. The Bible says when sin is finished it brings forth death.

Calvinism says the opposite. Calvinism says you are born dead and this death brings forth sin.

The exact opposite EVERY time.

adam sinned against the revealed will of God to him, ordered to not commit sin, willfully chose to do such...

he earned his wages, physical and spiritual death, and ALL after him shared in the "same reward"...

 

[Rippon]

God has already chosen to love all of us, he is simply waiting for us to choose to love him.

Ah ha,in your view Jesus is forlornly standing outside the ivy-covered door awaiting the decision of a person to let him in.

Does He love those that He hardens? Does He love those that He chooses not to reveal Himself? Does He love the residents of Hell?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ah ha,in your view Jesus is forlornly standing outside the ivy-covered door awaiting the decision of a person to let him in.

Does He love those that He hardens? Does He love those that He chooses not to reveal Himself? Does He love the residents of Hell?

Ha ha ha! Folks, the very nature of Christ's mission & accomplishment is involved in this question. Did Christ come to make salvation of all men possible, to remove obstacles that stood in the way of salvation, and to provide provision for salvation?

Or did He come to actually save people? Did He come to put all men in a salvable state? Or did He come to secure the salvation of all those who are ordained to eternal life? Did He come to make men redeemable? Or did He come effectually and infallibly to redeem? These are the questions you have to ask & answer for yourselves.

But for me anyway, Christ's work on the Cross was not a hypothetical salvation for hypothetical believers, but a real & definite salvation for God's own chosen people. A redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate, a reconciliation that does not reconcile, and an atonement that does not atone cannot help anybody. But a redemption that redeems, a propitiation that propitiates, a reconciliation that reconciles, and an atonement that atones reveal a most amazing grace on God's part and draws us to rest in Him and in His completed work, rather than our own.

 

[Skandelon]

Then I guess your forgetting about Gods mercy.:smilewinkgrin:

No, I haven't. It is by His mercy the gospel is even sent...

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. And I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." :godisgood:

Which can be taken to mean:

The Calvinistic answer: God will choose to show mercy to a select few people and damn the rest to hell from birth due to their being represented by Adam in the Fall...

OR, the Biblical answer: God will choose have mercy on people who are "not a nation," people who are considered "unclean," and "not elect." God has not chosen those who run after righteousness and desire salvation through law, but those who pursue it through faith. (Rm 9:30-32). Additionally, God will choose some of the Jews for "noble purposes" such as apostleship, like He did Paul, and he will choose others for "ignoble" or "common purposes," such as being hardened in their rebellion.

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.:thumbs:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."​

Jew = "man's desire and effort" represented by their "pursuit of a law of righteousness"

Gentile = Being shown mercy in that they "have obtained righteousness that is by faith...because they did not pursue it as if it were by works (i.e "man's desire and effort")

This is the clear contrast Paul is making in Romans 9.

 

[Winman]

Let me ask you three, Aaron, Rippon, and P4T, if Jesus does not love everyone, how do you know he loves you? If Jesus did not die for everyone, how do you know he died for you? If Jesus did not intend to save everyone, how do you know he intended to save you?