Was Adam Elected to Salvation or Damnation?

[Jedi Knight]

Jesus is speaking with his disciples.

And do you apply the fruit bearing to just the disciples too?

 

[quantumfaith]

JK:

On a personal note. I am so very happy to now be in a church focused on the worship of Our God and serving our fellow man. A church where the reformers and non-reformers seem to get along just fine. This being the result of leaving a church which made a sudden and "broad jump" to reformed theology under the leadership of a few and as result the church has almost been torn literally in half.

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP:Unlike some that say in one breath that God is Sovereign, and then tell us via their dogmas that God cannot create a truly free moral agent, you hit the nail on the head.

That is because you try with your finite mind to solve the infinite mind of God. Deuteronomy 29:29

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: That is because you try with your finite mind solve the infinite mind of God. Deuteronomy 29:29

HP: It is indeed sad when the one that does just that, by mandating the relationship that exits between election and the ends of men to be that of necessity with absolutely no other possibility even taken into consideration, happens to be yourself.

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: It is indeed sad when the one that does just that, by mandating the relationship that exits between election and the ends of men to be that of necessity with absolutely no other possibility even taken into consideration, happens to be yourself.

I didn't think you could attain.....and was right. Sad is you having absolutely NO ASSURANCE of Heaven and come to this board to spew your anger out through nasty remarks,condescending attitude and pride. Does godly attitudes come from this Arminianism view point of yours? I think not! I would think you can loose your salvation though these....if you truly believe sin can cut you off.

 

[quantumfaith]

I didn't think you could attain.....and was right. Sad is you having absolutely NO ASSURANCE of Heaven and come to this board to spew your anger out through nasty remarks,condescending attitude and pride. Does godly attitudes come from this Arminianism view point of yours? I think not! I would think you can loose your salvation though....if I bought in to that.

JK:

This is precisely why "discussion" of these two theological camps should be avoided, it almost always results in "name calling" from both sides of the fence.

 

[Jedi Knight]

JK:

This is precisely why "discussion" of these two theological camps should be avoided, it almost always results in "name calling" from both sides of the fence.

I do agree and that's why I question HP reason to come to a BAPTIST forum to do so. Kinda going outta his way don't ya think? Do you go to the Catholic,JW's Mormon forum to rant your differences?

 

[quantumfaith]

I do agree and that's why I question HP reason to come to a BAPTIST forum to do so. Kinda going outta his way don't ya think?

Well JK, I am baptist too, and I do not hold to the reformed view of theology, dont know for sure what I am, perhaps Molinist, but definitely not reformed. All baptists are not reformed. In fact, anecdotally speaking, the vast majority of baptists would not consider themselves as reformed.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Well JK, I am baptist too, and I do not hold to the reformed view of theology, dont know for sure what I am, perhaps Molinist, but definitely not reformed. All baptists are not reformed. In fact, anecdotally speaking, the vast majority of baptists would not consider themselves as reformed.

That's no problem brother....but I agree that debating to the point of berating is ungodly. I always thought it ironic coming from some on here "not you" who believes you can loose your salvation but condone such behavior.

 

[quantumfaith]

That's no problem brother....but I agree that debating to the point of berating is ungodly.

:thumbs: On that we can most assuredly agree.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is explosive teaching. Paul begins chapter 9 by expressing his profound sorrow that ethnic Jews have missed God's salvation by rejecting their Messiah [= Christ]. But he says it's not as though God's word had failed. Rather, as we have already seen, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants" (9. 6-7). Being ethnically Jewish is not enough; rather one must be a child of the promise—and that, as we've seen, may include Gentiles and exclude Jews.

The problematic, then, with which Paul is wrestling is how God's chosen people the Jews could fail to obtain the promise of salvation while Gentiles, who were regarded by Jews as unclean and execrable, could find salvation instead. Paul's answer is that God is sovereign: He can save whomever He wants, and no one can gainsay God. He has the freedom to have mercy upon whomever He wills, even upon execrable Gentiles, and no one can complain of injustice on God's part.

So—and this is the crucial point—who is it that God has chosen to save? The answer is: those who have faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul writes in Galatians (which is a sort of abbreviated Romans), "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3. 7). Jew or Gentile, it doesn't matter: God has sovereignly chosen to save all those who trust in Christ Jesus for salvation.

That's why Paul can go on in Romans 10 to say, "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved'" (10. 12-13). Reformed theology can make no sense at all of this wonderful, universal call to salvation. Whosoever will may come.

Paul's burden, then, in Romans 9 is not to narrow the scope of God's election but to broaden it. He wants to take in all who have faith in Christ Jesus regardless of their ethnicity. Election, then, is first and foremost a corporate notion: God has chosen for Himself a people, a corporate entity, and it is up to us by our response of faith whether or not we choose to be members of that corporate group destined to salvation.

Your exposition presents your interpretation very well. However, I believe it is fundementally flawed in regard to representing the intent of Paul. Not your conclusion, which is to broaden election to include the Gentiles, but your interpretation of Romans 9:6-24 and election as primarily corporate and national instead of individual without ethnicity.

Paul is explicitly denying that election is coporate and national in Romans 9:6-24 as that is the very position of the Jews. Instead, election is individualistic that is characterized by a supernatural birth as in the case of Isaac in contrast to the seven other sons of Abraham. Election is individualistic as in the case of the particular love for Jacob previous to his birth in spite of his post-birth actions in contrast to Esau.

I beleive you have completely reversed Paul's intent in regard to election and personal salvation.

 

[quantumfaith]

Your exposition presents your interpretation very well. However, I believe it is fundementally flawed in regard to representing the intent of Paul. Not your conclusion, which is to broaden election to include the Gentiles, but your interpretation of Romans 9:6-24 and election as primarily corporate and national instead of individual without ethnicity.

Paul is explicitly denying that election is coporate and national in Romans 9:6-24 as that is the very position of the Jews. Instead, election is individualistic that is characterized by a supernatural birth as in the case of Isaac in contrast to the seven other sons of Abraham. Election is individualistic as in the case of the particular love for Jacob previous to his birth in spite of his post-birth actions in contrast to Esau.

I beleive you have completely reversed Paul's intent in regard to election and personal salvation.

DW: We will just kindly and with humility agree to take differing positions, but thank you for your response.

BTW: Although I know it must be "anathema" here, I do enjoy reading some about the "new perspectives of Paul", even from a well respected reformer like NT Wright.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Here is the logic(?) according to DW.
Election occurred before the world began or the first sin chosen by man.
No one can be elected to salvation unless they have sinned.
3. Conclusion: God had to predestine us first to sin before the world began if He elects us to salvation before the world began, hence God is indeed is the author of all sin for He of necessity had to predestined us to be in need of His election.

When you create your own straw men you can easily burn them. However, HP does not present my position at all. He distorts and perverts it by his analysis above. Although I have clearly and explicitly explained to him how he has perverted it, he continues to attribute "logic" to me that I have never used and have consistently declared to be a distortion of what I both said and meant. HP does not care if he is distorting what I said. He only cares about building straw men in order for him to look good.

I have NEVER said, "No one can be elected to salvation unless they have sinned."

What I said is that election "to" salvation presupposes the fall or else there is no need to elect anyone to salvation.

That is in the eternal decree of God the logical order would be to permit the fall, choose out from among the fallen those to be saved.

However, HP ignores that I am talking about the logical order in the eternal decree of God but presents my words as though I was talking about the chronological order in actual time and space.

There is a vast difference between the two. In the mind of God the fall is not the qualification for election but merely what logically precedes election whereas God's own good pleasure of grace is the qualification for election of fallen men to salvaiton.

However, HP has taken by comment which has reference to the logical order in the Mind of God before time and space and applied my comment to actual time and space making the actual fall in the Garden of Eden the prerequisite for God to elect anyone.

However, HP has taken my comment and applied it to time and space making the fall the prerequisite or qualification for election to salvation. Of course that would be a stupid position for anyone to take as that would mean since all man have sinned then all are qualified for election.

I seriously doubt if HP even understands the difference I have made above and probably thinks I have said nothing different than what he has misreprented me as saying.

It is a difference between logical sequence in the mind of God without any reference to being a qualification or cause for election versus making the fall the qualification to be elected to salvation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: Here is the logic(?) according to DW.
1. Election occurred before the world began or the first sin chosen by man.
2. No one can be elected to salvation unless they have sinned.
3. Conclusion: God had to predestine us first to sin before the world began if He elects us to salvation before the world began, hence God is indeed is the author of all sin for He of necessity had to predestined us to be in need of His election.

When HP distorts my position on his second statement, then it will follow he distorts my position on the third statement.

God is the FIRST CAUSE of sin in that He is responsible for creating creatures with the capability of free will which means He predetermined to give permission to allow the existence of sin.

However, God is not the RESPONSIBLE cause of sin. Why? Because God did not only create creatures capable of sinning, He created them to be RESPONSIBLE for their own free choices. Thus, in essence God created secondary causes (human responsible free will) which is the responsible cause of sin.

In addition, God in advance commanded them not to sin and gave them full warnings what would be the consequences of sinning.

In regard to God's eternal decree, sin and all of its consequences are never the good will of His pleasure as are all things that are holy, righteous and good.

The origin of sin falls into the permissive will of God as a secondary necessity in order to decree free will as free will cannot exist without permission for sin to exist.

GOD DID NOT COERCE ADAM OR EVE TO SIN. IT WAS NOT GOD'S WILL OF GOOD PLEASURE FOR ADAM OR EVE TO SIN. IT WAS NOT GOD'S REVEALED WILL FOR THEM TO SIN. IT WAS GOD'S PERMISSIVE WILL FOR THEM TO SIN WHICH PERMISSION WAS INHERIT IN THE CREATION OF FREE WILL.

 

[steaver]

HP: You have either read or set under the teachings of someone that understood the points and so called ‘iron clad logic’ of that system,’ cognizant of it or not.

Correct!

Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Holy Spirit.

HP: I use ‘author of’ as identical with the ‘first cause of.’ Hope that helps. Whoever is the ’first cause’ of something’ is the author of it.

God placed a forbidden fruit at the reach of Adam and gave Adam a command and a free-will choice to obey or sin. However, God knew in advance that Adam would indeed choose to sin if He gave Adam the chance.

Would God then be the "first cause" of sin entering into the world since He placed the tree in Adam's reach KNOWING FULL WELL Adam would indeed eat??

HP: No, because God created him as God creates all sentient moral beings, with the freedom and capacity to be the first cause of their moral intents. The best evidence of this is the clear fact that God holds man accountable for their intents and punishes or praises men accordingly.

Can Adam be the "first cause" for sin entering into the world if God placed a forbidden tree in his reach KNOWING FULL WELL Adam would fail??

HP: I can appreciate that you say God did not make Adam sin, but is that consistent with the position you took in your other response to my question? I would not believe so.

Didn't God caused Adam to fail simply by giving Adam a free-will and a choice, for God KNEW IN ADVANCE that by creating a man with a choice that the man would indeed choose sin??

Can the "first cause" truly begin with Adam??

 

[steaver]

God is the FIRST CAUSE of sin in that He is responsible for creating creatures with the capability of free will which means He predetermined to give permission to allow the existence of sin.

.

Amen!

And why did God cause Adam to fail?

That Jesus Christ would be glorified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a perfect plan!!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sin entered the human race and into the angelic race through GOOD!

You may think the above statement to be strange but please hold judgement until you hear me out.

God is good, there is no shadow of turning in Him as He is perfect light - sinless perfection - with no deviousness, but is wholly holy - all of his thoughts, decrees and attributes.

When God created the universe and earth it could be said "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

This means sin had not entered into creation until after the seventh day. Lucifer had not yet become Satan. No death, disease or evil existed - ONLY GOOD!

Satan was tempted and fell into sin through that which was GOOD. It is not sin to want to be like God. We should all want to be like God. It was this GOOD desire misapplied that sin entered Satan. Satan was beautiful and powerful and probably next to God the most powerful and beautiful being in existence. There was nothing wrong in recognizing his own beauty and power as that was the work of God and thus GOOD. However, sin entered through that which was meant to be GOOD. It was GOOD to want to be like God but not to the point to REPLACE God. It was GOOD to recognize the beauty and power given Lucifer but not to the point of taking the credit for it.

Eve was deceived but Adam was not deceived. However, Eve is the only woman fashioned by God's own hands and she must have been absolutely beautiful to look upon. She was made GOOD and made for Adam to Love and cherish and bond himself to her as ONE. It was GOOD for Adam to love her as his own self. It was GOOD for Adam to be so bonded to her as to be ONE flesh. However, when He knew she sinned his love and bond of unity, which was GOOD, became the test of His love and bond of unity with God. It was the test of GREATER love. Would Adam take sides with God against Eve or would Adam's love and bond for Eve result in choosing to die with her rather than to live without her? Sin entered into the human race through what was created as GOOD (his love, bond of unity to Eve). His love and unity for Eve was GOOD but it became sin when chosen above His love and unity with God.

Sin entered into the human race and angelic race through what was created to be GOOD but misapplied.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And why did God cause Adam to fail?

That Jesus Christ would be glorified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a perfect plan!!

Brother, I would prefer to reword it by saying "And why did God PERMIT Adam to fail? That Jesus Christ would be glorified." Individual acts of Sin and evil are always by permission never by approval, unless of course, we are looking at the greater picture, then it is approval for the greater good.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, (speaking to Steaver): Brother, I would prefer to reword it by saying "And why did God PERMIT Adam to fail? That Jesus Christ would be glorified." Individual acts of Sin and evil are always by permission never by approval, unless of course, we are looking at the greater picture, then it is approval for the greater good.

HP: I have never heard a man say more clearly contradictory things yet refuse to admit to any. First he says he agrees with Steaver, then he says he would prefer to say it differently, and then he says it is OK to say it just like Steaver if one it looking at the greater picture which he sees as approval for ‘the greater good.’

So indeed if it is approval for the greater good God can be certainly seen as the author of all evil, just as Steaver has clearly stated. God caused Adam to sin. What an utter unscriptural, unthinkable, and repulsive absurdity, and to think they pin such wickedness on a Holy and Just God!

The problem debating men like DW is that they speak out of both sides of their mouth, and deny the truth of their statements regardless of how obvious their contradiction and absurdities might be. They always try to have everything both ways for convenience. Of a truth, Calvinism is a maelstrom of confusion and DW is a class act in setting forth that reality.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let the reader understand, that when DW starts speaking of that which he denotes as the ‘greater good,’ he is espousing a purely Calvinistic philosophical notion, not something founded in Scripture. Let there be no mistake. DW is driven by such philosophical positions when he tries to pawn off his ‘exegetical’ interpretation of Scripture as pure exegesis. He needs to be reminded of the clear philosophical underpinnings that drive his every conclusion. :thumbs: