Jacob I loved and Esau I hated = individual election?

No. I said you believe that it is a natural ability.

That's true.

True.

Except life.

Because they had nothing to do with it, just as you had nothing to do with your first birth.

Where is boasting? It is excluded . . .

Acquaint yourself with John Bunyan.

 

I don't believe it is true that everyone can clearly see and understand all they need. No possible way. They may see it but at the same time it is so opposed to their nature that they not only are blind but want to be.

Your right that it is their fault for rejecting the gospel if presented Christ.

Haven't you ever been driven crazy by the fact that we are so insane and out of step with reality that it is tormenting? Haven't you ever felt like you don't even know God and He is so far from you that you could never find Him or know how to call on Him? Sin is not something to take lightly, I think it has affected our entire being to its very core.

Don't you ever just fall before God at times in our utter state of helplessness and just say I quit, I am a mature Christian and I still break every aspect of Your love without even realizing it? I find myself continually amazed at how blind I am of my sins.

Personally, I will gladly present myself as worthless (not proud of it) and the more I live the more I realize I must rely on Christ alone as my everything. My flesh is not just bad, its wicked, opposed to God, blind, totally deceptive, and I can go on. I was just at church today and I caught myself judging and hating on people in worship service. I was completely ignorant of what I was doing and I believe God opened my eyes and it pretty much tore me apart. It wasn't so clear and it never is. This is why I am desperate for God's grace to keep me and show me these things.

Another thing is that I can't get over how we can read the Scripture and as you say, "clearly" see the Jews foolishness and rejection. Not only were they fools but they were self-righteous, though they were really smart and familiar with the Law which "clearly" pointed to their need of a Savior, with crystal clear illumination. I have read about the Jews so many times and I thought to myself "what a bunch of idiots to reject something so clear". When it is evident that the very time I say that I am exalting myself and thanking God for making me so wise and understanding. Then, every once in awhile, I realize that this is exactly how the Jews thought about themselves and I am a fool for thinking I can see better than them.

After I realize and see my foolishness for thinking myself wiser and better than the Jews, I say, "I am glad I humbled myself". Then I pause and realize that I am trying to revert back to something I did (self exaltation; something I did without God) that has made me better than the Jewish people yet again. Finally, after a series of events where my nature is fighting with all its strength to boast in and of itself I realize that it wasn't me who brought me low and needy before Christ, but it was God. If God would have left me alone in and of myself to humble myself I would have deceived myself the first time and turned blindly to independence and ran away from God.

 

I have been quite busy. Besides, I have enjoyed watching your back-and-forth with Aaron.

...till later...

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

They were born sinners and they grew in sin. Now we are born of God and grow in grace.

I realize you hold that rejection is not something that everyone has done and that depravity only is given to people through their rejection. I see how you can believe that, although as I read on (Romans 2:1-3) Paul is condemning everyone to the depravity he talked about at the end of chapter 1. Throughout chapter 2 he continues to show them that Jew or Gentile with or without the written Law people are condemned by the Law. This is because nobody is righteous and that nobody is good, even the Jews who live by their own righteousness (2: 17-24) are condemned by the Law. (2: 14-15) Paul shows that even Gentiles without the Law do the Law because of that knowledge of God inwardly although it only serves to condemn because they are not righteous.

Your right, in 1:20 they had a clear understanding of God by nature. They knew He was there and to this day it is something that is blindly rejected. I believe this is even true of people who hear the Gospel they know it and understand, but do they really get it in their hardened hearts? I don't think this understanding is the kind that is "all they need for life". I don't think the word is clear to everyone in the sense in which exceeds their depravity and brings change. They need a circumsized heart.

1:29 says of those given over to depravity and especially verse 31 "without understanding" which is part of the curse of evil. If you hate God you have no understanding, and we all hated God at one point. I believe this is something that includes everyone.

No, there is no excuse. Sin is sin. sin is rejection of truth. All have sinned therefore all have rejected truth. The problem is that not only is there no excuse for rejecting the gospel, but there is no excuse for sinning period. People are going to go to hell for sin and many of those people will go for their sin and their rejection of their only hope. It isn't a matter of being chosen, understanding the gospel to save somebody, or that God is obligated to have mercy on a sinner. Everyone does have a sense of general revelation, yet everyone has denied that when they sinned. The only people who haven't denied God are those who haven't sinned. If you haven't denied God then why need a Savior?

The message isn't powerless, it is God's means by which the Spirit moves. But why is it powerless to those who don't believe? Because their heart remained hard and wasn't ready to receive it. Then you are wondering why was their heart not ready to receive the power of God, the Gospel? Because it is God who prepares the heart even to receive the Words at the appointed time and place.

 

Well here we go. As I said, it's fruitless to argue, so this will be my last response.

Take my words at face value. You believe you accepted God's gift of your own free will. That assumes some inherent nobility.

No you don't. You boast of it.

Was it somehow rebutting anything I said? No, rather, it confirmed it.

Whatever. S'long. :wavey:

 

You are free to assume that. Why would you? If the reason is because choosing God versus not choosing God is better for the creature, then it is certainly not a choice born out of nobility. It would be one of necessity to obtain or avoid a certain outcome.

 

How can anyone have an excuse to offer God at the Day of Judgment? Everyone is a sinner -- we all deserve condemnation. No one has a get-out-of-hell free-card if they claim that they didn't know etc.

 

We are judged for Adam's sin.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Unfortunately, this will likely be a hit-and-run post. Much to do.
Paul is clear that those who lived from Adam to Moses--though there was no Law (as in the OT Law, that's Paul's common usage)--still died.

Adam's sin was imputed to all his progeny. This is why everyone died. Let's say that Adam had a great-great grandson named, for lack of a better term, Fred. There was no Law in Fred's time, no rules to break, and, therefore, no sin to commit. Yet, Fred died in due time. If there was no sin on Fred's account, why did he die? Because Adam's sin spread to all men and all men are counted guilty before God for what Adam did.

Now, I know you Arminian-types don't like this notion of the imputation of Adam's sin. However, if you don't accept the imputation of Adam's sin and the guilt that entails, you cannot hope to accept the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

That is wrong Archangel, it does not say Adam's sin passed on us, it says death passed on all men for that all have sinned. It is the death sentence that passes on us when we sin. And verse 14 confirms it is for our sin that we die, not Adam's.

Go back and read it again carefully.

 

No.

It is you that need to read carefully--and apply some biblical theology.

Romans 5:15 says "But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. " "Emphasis mine)

Paul says many died through one man's trespass...and the wages of sin is? Death. Technically, could those without the law sin? No. Therefore, in some way, we were all "in Adam" when he sinned and we all, in some way, incur his guilt and his sentence. Sin and death are inseparable. After all, the wages of sin is death.

ADDED:

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Adam's sin led to condemnation for all men, not "death." Adam's sin made us sinners. Since Paul is using the chiastic structure, if you deny the simple things that he is saying, you must deny the other leg of the argument. Therefore, if we were not made sinners by Adam's sin, we cannot be made righteous by Christ. If we were not condemned by Adam's sin, we cannot be justified by Christ's act of righteousness.

Your argument will not stand.

The Archangel

 

IOW Winman, we propogate after the likeness of ourselves. Adam sinned and that sin was upon him changing his very nature, and all those who sprang from Adam obtained the very likeness of their father, according to his nature. Are they judged for their fathers sin, no. But the consequences of their fathers sin carries itself over into them, becomes a part of them and they continue both in and after his image. Thus all of us are born with a sin nature. That which is fallen, imperfect, and stained, and as we grow and are able to make decesions for ourselves it manifests itself in all we do.

 

I do not see in scripture that man's nature was changed. His legal standing before God? Yes. His nature? No.

Tell me, were Adam and Eve able to sin before they actually sinned? If so, then how did their nature change?

Now legally, they did change. They were sinless and pure. They were under no condemnation for sin. As soon as they sinned they came under the condemnation or sentence of "death". And the scriptures say this.

Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Paul is speaking in legal terms. He is not saying man's nature was changed, he is saying the legal "judgment" or "condemnation" passed on all men because they too have sinned.

But tell me how Adam and Eve's nature changed. Did they have the ability to sin before they sinned? Please answer that question.

And show me where God ever cursed man's moral nature, I would love to see that.

 

Allan, I agree with what you have said here, although I like to say "flesh" and not sin nature. You see, I do not see a change in man's nature when Adam and Eve sinned. It is clear to me that they had the ability to sin before they actually sinned or else they could not have. Isn't that so?

God made man upright. He was sinless and pure. He was very good. But at the same time, God made man flesh, and the flesh is weak. The flesh carries desires and lusts. We can see this in Eve's temptation.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve was drawn away and enticed by her fleshly desires. This fruit looked good to eat and was beautiful to look at. It was desired to make one wise.

You see, Eve already had these lusts and desires in her before she actually sinned. And this is what we are all born with. This is pointed out many times in scripture.

Matt 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But, every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.

The scriptures say we are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lust. This is the flesh. We are not compelled to sin, but we are enticed, or seduced. That is the definition of the word "drawn away" in vs. 14.

So, I personally do not see this "fall" people talk about. Oh, I was taught that and believed it for many years, but when I examined scripture I could not find it. Man was never as good as God. Man was good and sinless when created, but we were made flesh with desires and lusts that draw or entice us toward sin. But man is respsonsible to control these lusts and desires and so is accountable when he gives in and sins.

 

There is a tension with man being created only in Adam's image with Scripture like Genesis 9:6 where God destroys those who He states are in His image (post fall) and 1 Corinthians 11:7 where Paul reaffirms man's creation in God's image. This is but one problem with Augustine's view.

 

There is no tension if you understand "Image." Image is not inherent (some quality in us). Image is functional (we image God in that we represent Him--like Secretary Clinton represents President Obama).

Image is role-related.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I agree it is not limited to inherent quality within (some sort of righteousness), but I believe there is more to it than being functional as well, as I do not believe a creation "created" spiritually separated from God can fit this image.