What is your view of death from Adam that all inherited

[DaChaser1]

In another thread I just laid out what our "sin" of birth actually is -- the absence of God. I use "darkness" as a metaphor (as does the Bible) to describe the issue. There is no such thing as "darkness." What it is, is the absence of light. Light is actually "something" -- photons, God, light. Darkness is the absence of that -- "nothing." So, in essence, God did not "create" darkness, for darkness is what is when there is no God (no light -- Read John 1-3).

Our birth sin is akin to darkness. It is the absence of God. It is not some-thing in that it is created. God is not the "author" of sin because sin is the absence of God. God, however, is the author of light and the author of salvation because both are found in His presence.

So, our initial state is that of being absent of God and the sins (note the "s") are the actions (verbs) that those with an absence of God do for any number of reasons, on purpose, by accident, by ommission, by commission, but they are dependent on God being absent, for in God there is no sin(s).

Hope that helps you to understand.

So calvinists view us born into seperation/estrangement away from God due to the fall of Adam, and us found in him and now spiritually dead in ourselves, while Non cals see it as being?

 

[glfredrick]

This is Augustine's evil as privation.

I brought it up six months ago or so.

Skandelon's retort is something like this: "So murder and rape (sins) are NOTHING?!?!"

I said, "Yes. In the same way that cold is nothing but the absence of heat and yet cold can cause terrible suffering and death. Yes. In the same way that hunger is nothing but the absence of nourishment but it causes great misery and death, etc..."

The absence of God causes all sorts of evil and death.

 

[glfredrick]

So calvinists view us born into seperation/estrangement away from God due to the fall of Adam, and us found in him and now spiritually dead in ourselves, while Non cals see it as being?

I don't know what the anti-cals think. They would have to speak up for themselves.

 

[psalms109:31]

"Secondly, IN CHRIST JESUS THERE IS LIFE,
for he says: "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." There is no life in God the Father for a sinner; there is no life in God the Spirit for a sinner apart from Jesus. The life of a sinner is in Christ. If you take the Father apart from the Son, though he loves his elect, and decrees that they shall live, yet life is only in his Son. If you take God the Spirit apart from Jesus Christ, though it is the Spirit that gives us spiritual life, yet it is life in Christ, life in the Son. We dare not, and cannot apply in the first place, either to God the Father, or to God the Holy Ghost for spiritual life. The first thing we are led to do when God brings us out of Egypt is to eat the Passover—the very first thing. The first means whereby we get life is by feeding upon the flesh and blood of the Son of God; living in him, trusting on him, believing in his grace and power. Our second thought was—there is life in Christ."

C.H.Spurgeon

 

[webdog]

I don't know what the anti-cals think. They would have to speak up for themselves.

...and this would be yet another lie as I told you just this very thing the other day.

 

[Luke2427]

It IS the answer to the question that is so often posed concerning a sovereign God -- He could not "author" what is merely His absence. He can "allow" His absence, but there is nothing to "author."

Exactly.

I made this argument several months ago, but Skandelon will not let himself see it.

 

[Winman]

It is not like ANY of us has a choice to believe that or not. It IS the Word of God.

We are ALL condemned and Christ came into the world to save "some." That is the Word of God.

Further, right before this, Jesus explained to Nicodemus how the Holy Spirit is like the wind:

Jhn 3:8 The wind [pneuma = Spirit] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

It would seem to me, from a very cursory reading, that Jesus was trying to get through the thick skull of a teacher of Israel that God's born again from above salvific experience is something OTHER than mere mental belief or assent of man.

We can neither be "born again from above" on our own effort nor "born of the Spirit" on our own effort -- or even our own choice. It is all God's grace.

How many people does the wind blow upon? Does the wind only blow upon certain elect persons, or does the wind blow upon all men?

 

[HankD]

I don't like labels because there is usually no one size fits all.

e.g. calvinists, there are the "Heinz 57" varieties of flavors, same with "arminians", "dispensationalists", etc.

So, I am neither C or A and in addition don't have an agenda for either.

So rather than label me for this question, please contemplate the question (dont have to actually answer it with a post either)

There is an account in the Bible where a man seeks after God, is rebuked, gets really angry and commits murder.

Later after another confrontation with God, he prays to God and God grants his prayer.

Cain.

Was Cain dead in trespasses and sins when he participated in a dialogue with God (who heard his prayer and answered it)?

Thanks
HankD

 

[glfredrick]

...and this would be yet another lie as I told you just this very thing the other day.

You are but one non-cal with one of many positions. Or do ALL the non-cals around here allow you to speak for them?

What say the rest of those holding a non-cal position, Van, MB, Winman, Quantum, and a host of others, does Webdog speak for you on issues of doctrine or does he speak only for himself?

Time to clear this up. And, if he does speak for you, that certainly makes it easier to know what you all believe.

 

[glfredrick]

How many people does the wind blow upon? Does the wind only blow upon certain elect persons, or does the wind blow upon all men?

Let's call it the way the Scriptures do... The Holy Spirit moves as He wills -- to whomever He wills, whenever He wills, and however He wills. No man can control His actions, movement, or effect.

Or do you somehow think that some man does control the Holy Spirit of God?

 

[kyredneck]

...and this would be yet another lie as I told you just this very thing the other day.

Post reported:

"Webdog called the statement a lie. He needs to be corrected not to use the word 'lie'."

 

[webdog]

Post reported:

"Webdog called the statement a lie. He needs to be corrected not to use the word 'lie'."

Actually, it was stated the calling of others as "liars" should be avoided, but I know reading comprehension is sometimes overrated...

 

[webdog]

You are but one non-cal with one of many positions. Or do ALL the non-cals around here allow you to speak for them?

What say the rest of those holding a non-cal position, Van, MB, Winman, Quantum, and a host of others, does Webdog speak for you on issues of doctrine or does he speak only for himself?

Time to clear this up. And, if he does speak for you, that certainly makes it easier to know what you all believe.

Nice backtrack from a deliberately false statement. You have heard from each one of us concerning this matter, its not up to us to keep playing your game.

 

[HankD]

Is there some reason we can't give the benefit of the doubt and say something like:

"I believe so-and-so is mistaken" or "I believe so-and-so is wrong".

Or even "you are wrong", why assume a lie?

HankD

 

[webdog]

Is there some reason we can't give the benefit of the doubt and say something like:

"I believe so-and-so is mistaken" or "I believe so-and-so is wrong".

Or even "you are wrong", why assume a lie?

HankD

The majority of the time you are right, but there are times when there are those who deliberately tell something false.

 

[kyredneck]

Actually, it was stated the calling of others as "liars" should be avoided, but I know reading comprehension is sometimes overrated...

I called no one a liar. I did exactly as you and called a statement a lie.

 

[kyredneck]

The difference will be that I was formally reprimanded, while you webdog, will most likely not be.

It's your 'special status' here on the BB. You can make all the knee jerk inflammatory quips you want and remain unscathed. The rest of us (at least the DoGs) are not so privileged.

 

[webdog]

The difference will be that I was formally reprimanded, while you webdog, will most likely not be.

It's your 'special status' here on the BB. You can make all the knee jerk inflammatory quips you want and remain unscathed. The rest of us (at least the DoGs) are not so privileged.

..and now you have been gifted with ESP, or have you hacked my account? You should see some of the trivial posts I've been "reprimanded" on, and the ugly PM's I've received from a certain administrator who sits on your side of the fence (the less hyper side). If you want to see "special status" look at Aaron's posting and how he is able to call out, attack and mock a moderator at will. Don't play the martyr.

 

[kyredneck]

..and now you have been gifted with ESP, or have you hacked my account? You should see some of the trivial posts I've been "reprimanded" on, and the ugly PM's I've received from a certain administrator who sits on your side of the fence (the less hyper side).

I'm curious, have you received actual infractions or warnings by PM? Mine was minor (no points lost and gone in a week) and Skandelon was understanding and professional about it, I suppose he did what he thought he had to (I don't envy his position).

But as a paticipating moderator on the forum he should not have flipped you a thumbs up for yet another of your knee jerk inflammatory quips, especially in view of the fact EWF could have reported it as inflammatory and he would then have to deal with it on another level, and that after he has given his approval of the knee jerk inflammatory quip.

If you want to see "special status" look at Aaron's posting and how he is able to call out, attack and mock a moderator at will. Don't play the martyr.

I suppose that Aaron and Skan and I have in common thick skins, and Skan could call Aaron down anytime he feels he needs to. I've actually taken no personal offense in any of this. I'm wanting these things to be brought out in the light for all to see. I believe it will ultimately be beneficial for all.

 

[glfredrick]

Nice backtrack from a deliberately false statement. You have heard from each one of us concerning this matter, its not up to us to keep playing your game.

No back track at all. Each of you seem to have another point of view, something that has been emphasized of late, so I simply decided to say so. Let each speak for themselves, and I suspect that includes you pretending to speak for all the others...