Is this the Arminian Stumper?

Samuel,

I understand your frustration with me. Since you quoted another scripture, allow me to use it as an example of how certain things we believe are not in “black and white” and are a matter of personal theology.

Concerning this you said Adam was not “aware of Good nor Evil”? Where does it say this in Gen. 3:5? Where does it say that Adam had no knowledge whatsoever of good and evil? All it says is “your eyes will be opened”. Does this necessarily mean his eyes were completely closed to the comprehension of good vs. evil? Don’t you think that Adam must have had some understanding of these things? How else would he know he was doing “wrong” when he disobeyed? How would Adam be aware of the concept of obedience vs. disobedience if he was completely oblivious to good and evil? Why would God even hold him accountable? You see, I interpret this verse in Genesis different from you. I believe Adam had a measure of knowledge by virtue of his intellegence while Gen. 3:5 has to do with a complete knowledge. Not all or nothing. And both sides, yours and mine, are a matter of opinion.

Sorry, I cannot begin to offer my opinon on Romans 9 given that we're not on the same page on Genesis 3:5.

 

4study,

If you have read the Bible lately sinners and those who practice sinning don't go to Heaven. [I John 3:8.] The word commiteth in the Greek means {practice}. Those who practice sinning are of the Devil and end up in a place called Hell. You are way off orthodoxy if you don't know this. And with your statement, I might guess that you might not be able to judge between a child of God and a wilful sinner. But, I hope you can see the difference.

With respect,
Ray

 

Because that is what the passage is about -- the different responses to the seed, which is the word of God.

 

Samuel,

I'm surprised that you assumed that demons would get a second opportunity to regain their lost estate in Heaven. I think if you check with some Calvinistic brethren you will find they don't think this will happen.

 

Ray Berrian,

So those who practice sin are going to hell. If we take that premise and carry it through the Bible we should be able to make the following conclusions. All except Noah and his family went to hell. Saul (king of Israel) went to hell. Solomon (king of Israel) went to hell. Nicodemus (a Pharisee) went to hell. Those who forsook Paul (2Tim.4:10) went to hell. All because at some point in their lives they practiced sin. Are you certain I John 3:8 makes this claim? I’m not. Yet if it did, where do we draw the line? Can children of God practice sin? According to I John, it would appear not. However, did not the people of Israel practice sin? What about those of the Corinthian church?

 

Samuel,

On January 21 at 3:48 p.m. I entered a post with a list of Old and New Covenant verses. Do you believe they teach 'Free Will' or 'the Bondage of the Will'? You will find it on page 5.

 

Samuel,

Wait. You said Adam was “ not aware of Good nor Evil”. Here you say, “he did know it was wrong”. So which is it? These two statements appear contradictory. To you, they may not be at all, so perhaps you can explain why you used the terms “not aware of Good nor Evil”.

And I replied to that argument. I note in your first comments you mentioned no scripture except for an allusion to Romans 9. There are only two scriptures you’ve used so far; Gen.3:5 and Rom.9:22,23. And Gen 3:5 is what we’ve discussed thus far.

You asked me to discuss scripture and I have. In this last post, you’ve provided no reply to my last post on Gen 3:5. Are you interested in discussing this any further? To me, what you believe about Gen. 3:5 is important to this thread if I am going to continue. Why? Because it has much to do with what we believe about the conecpt of CHOICE and what we believe "the fallen state" is.

Note: I'm not Arminian.

 

Pastor Larry,

Correct me if I’m wrong. So Matt 13, the “mysteries of the kingdom”, is the entire Word of God, including “the way to eternal life”, because “the seed”, is the entire Word of God.

What, specifically, leads you to believe this? Why does “the seed” necessarily refer to the entire Word of God?

I know you didn't use the word "entire". I'm just making an assumption here to emphasize what I think you're saying concerning what is included in the "mysteries of the kingdom".

 

Samuel,

I’ve been stopping the discussion at this point because it is pertinent to your belief about CHOICE and “the fallen state”. You say Adam “was not affected by sin” before the fall however, the extent of the “affect” after the fall is what I’m questioning by discussing what you believe about Adam’s abilities before the fall. I would argue you’re understanding of Romans 3 as well.

Where does it say this in scripture? I assume you may refer me to something like Romans 5:12. Yet even there, where does it say that God gave Adam a rule in the Garden that would ultimately create a means by which sin could enter the world? Does Romans 5:12 suggest that God created Adam and the Garden of Eden for this purpose? IMO, it does not.

I realize those are phrases from scripture, however, they are terms of which you are assuming I agree with you as to their definitions. I ask again, “dead” to what extent? And what does “sin nature” mean? These are things we usually take for granted and don’t think about very much. For me, it’s important not to gloss over anything in God’s Word. So it may surprise you that I have different understandings of the words “death” and “sin nature” than you do.

 

This is a sincere question, so please don't be offended.

Who made the soil?

 

Samuel,

I chose not to say anything about Romans 3 because I don't think we're done with Gen. 3:5 yet. I thought going into another scripture would just confuse things.

I apologize for frustrating you but I guess I'm simply not going down the path you would like. You asked me to discuss scripture, so I responded to Gen. 3:5. I guess my comments frustrated you and now you believe this is "fruitless" discussion. I'm sorry you feel that way but to me, covering the details is not "fruitless".

Thanks for your time.

 

Latreia stated:

I said "It's showing that salvation is on an individual basis, rather than national", but the context was that the ultimate point of the whole passage is about individual salvation, but some of the examples used are not.
Actually, I think there are at least two here who seem to believe in double predestination, I apologize if I am wrong. npetreley admittely has different views than some of you, and Samuel's paraphrase of Rom 9:22/23 definitely suggests that. [God had to have somebody to condemn to show His power]

If it is only a dichotomy of "elect" and "non-elect", the differences of the other three would be meaningless-- you would only have two soils. This passage seems to suggest dispositions (as in the Acts 13:48 debate).

npetereley said:

Either that, or you have Satan as bringing the non elect into existence, since being a "seed of satan" or "seed of God" are eternally preordained states. Didn't we all start out as children of Satan, and some crossed over?

As to the Matt.13 debate, just like John 6, Christ was not calling everyone yet, else, as was discussed in another thread, you have Christ shutting out people who would have apparently come to Him if He hadn't stopped them from coming by "blinding" them. Some of these same people may have repented later (as we see in Acts) so this too is not a decree of their souls to Hell.

 

Samuel (or anyone else caring to discuss Romans 9:22,23)

Where does one get the idea the "objects" are people? In the KJV, the word is "vessels". Does vessels = person? Does objects = person? What about the possibility of office instead? Can we think of an "object" or "vessel" being a position/office instead of a person? I realize Romans 9 uses the idea of person (i.e. Pharaoh), however, the context is, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel". Is Israel an office or a person?