What do 5 point Calvinist have to say about this question?

[Frogman]

quote:by Yelsew: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KenH:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yelsew:
If he had not sinned, would he have lived eternally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, as it was man's sin that causes man to die. Man would have continually had access to the Tree of Life if Adam had not sinned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggest you go read the whole story.

 

[TheTravelingMinstrel]

First of all
The '5 points of calvinism' arn't really the heart of reformed doctrine.
there was 5 points of arminianism came first.
The teachings of Jacob Arminianus were brough into question and a council was held that encompassed over 300 protestant theologians and lasted over 150 days. At the end Arminianism was declared a heresy and they developed the '5 points of calvinism' to counteract the 5 points of arminianism.
If you read the 5 points of arm. you will basically see the opposite of TULIP.

Second of all
What on earth does this have to do with calv or armin? It's simple. IF they don't aknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior, then they are not Christians. Period. Doesn't matter how zealous they are or how diligently they seek 'truth'.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
quote:by Yelsew: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KenH:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yelsew:
If he had not sinned, would he have lived eternally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, as it was man's sin that causes man to die. Man would have continually had access to the Tree of Life if Adam had not sinned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggest you go read the whole story.

Do not credit yelsew with "If he had not sinned, would he have lived eternally?" Yelsew quoted another poster.

Do not credit yelsew with "Yes, as it was man's sin that causes man to die. Man would have continually had access to the tree of life if adam had not sinned." They too are someone else's words. Yelsew knows that God's command to Adam was that he not eat of the trees in the center of the garden. The trees are the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of life.

That is why Yelsew told KenH to go read the whole story.

Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not the sin of Adam. Disobedience of God is.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not the sin of Adam. Disobedience of God is.

What in the world are you talking about? Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is how Adam disobeyed God.

 

[Frogman]

Where is it recorded that Adam was not to eat of the tree of life, until after the fall?--Perhaps we should move this discussion over under the Adamic Nature???

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not the sin of Adam. Disobedience of God is.

What in the world are you talking about? Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is how Adam disobeyed God. </font>[/QUOTE]The command of God was that Adam not eat of that tree. Adam did eat of that tree, therefore Adam disobeyed God. The fruit of the tree is incidental but specific to the command. The sin of Adam is disobedience, because to eat of the tree is an act of disobedience. The consequence of that sin is that is the consequence God set forth of eating the fruit, and that is that man surely dies. Man was removed from the Garden so that he could not also eat of the tree of life and live eternally in sin for which there could be no atonement. The wage for sin is death, the first death, death of the flesh.

Every human that ever lived, is living, or will live will commit the very same sin that Adam committed...Disobedience. The first sin that humans commit is a form of disobedience. We do not have the Tree of knowledge of good and evil from which to eat, but it is clear that we do disobey.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Where is it recorded that Adam was not to eat of the tree of life, until after the fall?--Perhaps we should move this discussion over under the Adamic Nature???

Bro. Dallas

You're right! The tree of life is not in God's command, but is mentioned as being one of two specific trees in the center of the garden.

Gen 2:8,9 "Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned. From the soil, Yahweh God caused to grow every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Gen 2:16,17 Then Yahweh God gave the man this command, "You are free to eat of all the trees in the garden. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die."

Gen 3: 22. Then Yahweh God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing good from evil, he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live for ever!"

 

[Frogman]

There was no command while man was in his original creation of innocence that stated he could not of his then 'free-will' eat of the tree of life.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
There was no command while man was in his original creation of innocence that stated he could not of his then 'free-will' eat of the tree of life.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

I thought I made that clear. God did however, remove man from the garden to exclude him from access to the tree of life. Nothing worse than an eternal sinner!

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
There was no command while man was in his original creation of innocence that stated he could not of his then 'free-will' eat of the tree of life.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

I thought I made that clear. God did however, remove man from the garden to exclude him from access to the tree of life. Nothing worse than an eternal sinner! </font>[/QUOTE]Thus preventing the possibility of man operating from within his depraved will to reach forth and take of that tree.

Exactly.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
There was no command while man was in his original creation of innocence that stated he could not of his then 'free-will' eat of the tree of life.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

I thought I made that clear. God did however, remove man from the garden to exclude him from access to the tree of life. Nothing worse than an eternal sinner! </font>[/QUOTE]Thus preventing the possibility of man operating from within his depraved will to reach forth and take of that tree.

Exactly.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]You place too much emphasis on "depraved". The flaming swords are sufficient to keep man in any condition from re-entering the Garden. At this point in the story man is cursed to a life of struggle for survival. Do you think for one minute that man in that condition would desire to live forever? I don't think so!

 

[Frogman]

From this point in time man is governed by the lusts of the flesh, yes, there are very few and would be far between those who would not live an eternal life fulfilling these lusts.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Then you do not understand human nature. Who do you know that does not desire to stop struggling through life and to not have to do back breaking or mind bending work just to survive? Who do you know that wouldn't swap places with a rich person in order to avoid menial labor? Who do you know who wouldn't give everthing to have a better life?

Who do you know who would willingly give up their wealth to grovel in the dirt to earn a meager portion of salt?

No one wants to be empoverished! No one wants to depend on that which they have no control over for their existance.

None of those fit man's desire. Most who have struggled their whole life, to the point of suffering broken and weakening bodies do not want to continue living through out eternity in that manner. Most reach a point in this life when they want it to end so that their spirit can be set free.

If you are not one, ask your seniors what their desires are. Most will tell you that they are ready to depart this life. It is the same whether they are saved or unsaved.

There was never a point in my life that I wanted to remain for eternity.

 

[Frogman]

No one wants to be empoverished! No one wants to depend on that which they have no control over for their existance.

This is why men hate the doctrine of Sovereign Grace. It bankrupts man of his pride, it strips him of his self-righteous pride and men do not want this.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Even the Apostles had trouble dealing with the issue. It is human nature to seek that which is better, because we inherently know that the creator has something better for us. God instilled that desire in humanity, man didn't just dream it up!

To hear you talk, the fall made man no better than the beasts of the field. That is not what God's word tells me!

 

[Frogman]

From the Bible many beasts of the field have proven to be more obedient to thier creator than man has. There was a donkey...a rooster...a great fish...the lions in the den...etc.

I would say men are worse off than the beasts;

Bro. Dallas