The Fall of Man

</font>[/QUOTE]Indeed it does - after the fact of the fall.

It is not making a statement about Adam "needing to fall so God could be gracious".

It is difficult to "guess what they would know" without Adam falling -- isn't it?

In any case there are a lot of texts pointing to God saving fallen mankind but NO texts saying that mankind HAD to fall.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Wes.

"Who are you to talk back to God?" He punishes us for simply carrying out His plans and wishes.
That is my error. I meant He punishes us for simply carrying out His plans and wishes until He saves us, then we are forgiven. The others He punishes for simply carrying out His plans and wishes. Pharaoh will tell you that. EX 4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

As for the chosen they are loved with an everlasting love as Job knew. JOB 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;...
Nothing but good comes our way.

When they do as I tell them? HaHa! That'll be the day. JOB 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;...

And if I treated my kids like God treats man I would be locked up for a long long time! HaHa! You forget that I am not Sovereign Wes. Look what He did to Pharaoh man! He can do as He pleases.

john.

 

Again - this is a guess since it is hard to establish the idea that children of parents who did not give up a limb or donate an organ - do not know how much their parent loves them.

Most often love is conveyed day-by-day and NOT confined to a one-time super-act. In fact it is more the case that people exposed to the one-time act combined with a relativelyl lacking day-by-day experience begin to resent the whole thing.

I think God conveys His love every day in addition to the great one-time-event. I would never argue that God engineered the suffering and death of mankind to show how great He is - such an act would be a cruel monstrostity.

Like burning a child to show them how loving you are in donating some skin to them. Such a scheme is never viewed as "loving" just "propped up".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you talking about God or Satan?

I think I will add your post to the Calvinist future scenario right after "SURE I could have -- IF I had CARED to"

What say you?

I thought you had agreed that God is not the author/designer/master/originator/maker of sin?

In Christ,

Bob

 

JohnP - you are making this too easy.

 

Hello Bob.

Then why does God still blame us Bob? Satan can do nothing he is under the Despot as we all are. God is Sovereign.

Not me. God is the Author of sin. God is Sovereign. You made an assumption and you are wrong.

I don't know what you mean but have another 'God is Sovereign' just in case. It is 'God willing' that should trip off your tongue not 'As I will'. You sound as if you are sovereign or something.

I'm off to S/Wales in a minute God willing and might be out of touch for a couple of days. HaHa!

john.

 

John -

What a perfect response and exposure of where Calvinism can lead!!

I will indeed be adding your post to the "Future Calvinist Scenario"..

BTW - do you care to elaborate on which Calvinist ideas lead you to the conclusion that God is despot and God is the author of sin?? Oh wait! you already did! "God is Sovereign"!

That is right - Calvinism can not allow God to create a means to disconnect Himself from DIRECT responsibility for everything (so no free will in Calvinism's universe). Perfect!

Many thanks!

(You're making this sooo easy! I just hope I don't find out that you are in fact an Arminian disguised as Calvinist - posting extreme Calvinist positions to make Calvinism look worse than it is.

Of couse if "that" were true - the Calvinists on this board should have been climbing all over your case for doing that - a long time ago! So we must be good to go!)

In Christ,

Bob

[ June 02, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

No problem - click on this link for the C vs A thread that posts your proof as it is now found in the Future Calvinist scenario.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1442/5.html#000067

 

Strawmen are EASY to take down Bob, We've been showing you systematically the sovereignty and providence of God and you choose to ignore it.
Concurrence is a deep study but very enlightening when done.

 

If you are offering to "take down" that Calvinist future scenario -- by actually paying attention to the "details" rather than glossing over them .. then you are the first.

Since it is "easy" (as you say) this should be cake for you.

Have at it. You are first in line.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Have at it. You are first in line.


Bob... your funny...

 

Thanks. I always look forward to the "myriad ways" that a general claim is not backed up in "Detail".

Happy to provide another opportunity for that
--

 

What details? Of Concurrence?
Do you know Latin?

Posse peccare posse non peccare? Are you trying to say that Adam had a "free will" before the fall? You won't get any argument from me or any other Calvinist. But to believe that Adams state (and ours) was the same after the fall is an error. Posse peccare, NON posse NON peccare...
Man lost his moral liberty due to sin.

 

Et tantis pretiis constitutis plures Marcropodidas in hac caupona minime videbis!

AS for the details -- "details" of the scenario that you "claim" is EASY to "take down"...

(Still waiting for some backup to that gloss-over assertion. Anybody??)

---

As for Adam's state being the same after the fall - nobody is making that claim.

The point is that God HIMSELF ordained free will as we see in the case of Lucifer and Adam. (So this is not just some Arminian idea -- and "some" Calvinists will admit to it.)

The next point is that God who ORDAINS Free Will ENABLES it for sinful fallen humanity by supernatural DRAWING. "Drawing that ENABLES the choice that depravity disables" (To quote a Calvinist here some time ago)

Of course JohnP would deny all of that because some Calvinists can not figure out "how to BE God" and be sovereign -- and still allow for free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Where in the Bible does it say that God ENABLES (and I want a verse WITH THAT WORD IN IT and not interjected) by SUPERNATURAL DRAWING?

 

Is this where you pretend not to believe Calvinism AS WELL as Arminianism?

What does Calvinism say about "As many as are Drawn" in John 6??

(I am happy to move Calvinism beyond its stalled point of understanding - but some things I thought were IN SIDE the realm of Calvinist teaching)

 

My bad... forgot a little word.... God enables ALL ...by drawing...

 

As pointed out already - it was a Calvinist HERE that admitted that "The DRAWING of God ENABLES the choice that depravity DISABLES".

Now we have it "again" from Calvinists - in a more detailed form.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1467.html#000004

So rather than pretending that we never heard of Calvinism's view on the DRAWING of ALL mankind to God (John 12:32) lets move to the real issue at hand.

Can God's effective - realistic, supernatural DRAWING ENABLE choice so that mankind CAN actually respond -- without being forced to ALSO regenerate mankind FIRST?

Sadly - Calvinists claim "He can not".

Calvinists claim that ALL drawn are enabled to choose AND ARE ALSO regenerated.

Arminians claim that ALL Drawn are DRAWN -- enabled to ACTUALLY respond to DRAWING - but not regenerated.

The Arminian position is that HE CAN DRAW without ALSO having to REGENERATE the sinner. And that DRAWING ALONE ENABLES the choice as we see in Rev 3 where we find Christ STILL OUTSIDE knocking - and waiting for the sinner ALONE and INSIDE to choose to OPEN the door.

It is all pretty obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don't worry Whatever... We agree.... I know what Bob is trying horribly to do... Isn't there something in the Bible about causing division between brothers?... hmmm.

Drawing and Regenerating is splitting hairs even at the highest Theological levels... no riff between anybody here on the systematic side.

 

From you to me?