No way!!!! Pil would never do such a thing !! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shocked.gif" alt="shocked" title="shocked[/img]<br><br>bishop3
Dear Ron, I read your reply and want to thank you. Some of what you write I'm not very sure of if you are absolutely correct or not. Did not Adam say "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" intimating he is flesh and thus since the flesh is not able to please God and we see that Adam did not please God when the test came that this therefore shows that I could be correct? Do the Scriptures not say that Adam was soulish? It didn't say he "became soulish" but that he was soulish in 1 Cor.15:45? The term "natural man" I don't believe is really correct seeing that the adjectival form of the noun "soul" is used here and should be rendered "soulish" which is being such a one that is geared toward the soul rather than spirit. The second Adam, Christ did not become spiritual but just was spiritual just as Adam just was soulish. I love talking about these things for I love talking about God being sovereign in all things.
But I have a request: Could you put your reply in "sola Scriptura" for me? [scratch]
Dear Ron, I appreciate you not just asking your question but that you did so in a manner which glorifies the One who as saved us.<br><br>First off I want you to know that I think Arminianism is so horrible in that it deifies the puny will of man rather than the august will of God. It turns the will of man into a golden idol. <br><br>I don't believe man is morally capable of anything. Only when one is saved by God can he bring forth the fruit of the Spirit and even then it is imperfect for we are still sinners though saved by grace. (not that the Spirit's fruit is imperfect but that we "have our bad days" if you will).<br><br>I'm not saying that mankind does not have a will. It surely does. The scriptures are very clear about this. But is it free? It is in bondage to sin and the "spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness" etc. as well. There is the will of the flesh "which cannot please God" (Rom.8).<br><br>It is incorrect to call man a "free moral agency". If anything he is a "bondaged immoral agency."<br><br>And if we see why mankind (all mankind) sin we just look at Romans 5:12 where it says:<br> 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, (and it is) for that (reason that) all (mankind) have sinned." I supplied the words in parenthesis for supplying the ellipsis.<br><br>I don't know how mankind can be responsible in the ultimate sense of the word since they were "made sinners" against their will (Rom.5:19; 8:20). They cannot not sin. All sin and are wanting of the glory of God.<br><br>And since I can only go by Sola Sciptura, and I cannot find any verse in the Bible that says mankind is responsible for their actions, I cannot go above what is written. "God makes the widked for the day of judging." It doesn't say He makes it possible for them to be wicked. God makes the vessels of indignation. They don't take responsibility by telling God how to make them that way nor do they become that way due to some Arminianistic free-will choice.<br><br>In a relative sense we all have "responsibilities" to perform, both the vessels of indignation and glory. But just because a command is given such as "Thou shalt not..." does not mean that man is responsible to carry it out. "The law was given so that the offense would increase" (Rom.5). It anything it is to prove that mankind does not have the wherewithall to carry it out. In the ultimate sense though it is God that carries with much patience the vessels of indignation, and I might say that He carries them to the place where He will use them to His glory be they vessels of bed pans or spitoons or for garbage disposal. They cannot will it otherwise. They cannot choose to be a vessel of glory. So how can they be responsible? If you made a vessel of a bed pan and carried it with much patience (you sure want to be careful with that, let me tell you or it may spill! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] But do you say that the vessel you made is responsible for smelling the way it does?<br><br>Just some 2 cent thoughts from the peanut gallery. I'm not really up on the Calvinist position of responsibility but this is just how I think about it. I'm <b>not</b> saying Calvinism is wrong. Arminianism is just plain wrong.<br><br>Zoe
Zoe,<br><br>Remember, we are MOVING in a couple of days, so what I say here does not apply 100% to that on the other new Board. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>There are a couple of ways to insert a "Smiley" (Graemlin on the other Board). In every page where you either post, reply or edit a message and also when you are sending or replying to a PM, there is a link named: "[color:blue]Key for Smileys</font color=blue>. Clicking that link will open a popup window with all the available Smileys for this Board. Resting your mouse over a Smiley will give you the name that you type, including the brackets. Also, if you read the FAQ here: What Smileys are available to use in my posts?, you will see all the same Smileys with their respective names. You can also insert one of your own by using the [img] tags as shown in the FAQ in the section, found directly before the Smileys portion. [image]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>On the new Board.. the Graemlin's are "clickable". What that means is that all you need to do to insert one is to find the one you want to insert and click on it. The Graemlin will be automatically inserted for you without the need to type in the name. <br><br>NOTE: The FAQ section for the new Board is far more extensive than the one here. I suggest again, as it has already been done in your "Welcome Message" when you registered here, that you read the FAQ's [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/readit.gif" alt="readit" title="readit[/img]. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
Zoe,<br><br>You should really read this article:<br><br>http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm. It's called "A Primer On Hyper-Calvinism" and is written by Phil Johnson, a prominent Calvinist (and John MacArthur's right-hand man.) I would be curious what your thoughts on human responsibility were after reading this article.
Did not Adam say "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" intimating he is flesh and thus since the flesh is not able to please God and we see that Adam did not please God when the test came that this therefore shows that I could be correct?
Zoe,
As I already noted, the quick answer to this is that if Adam was flesh upon being created as you say, then prior to his outward disobedience to God he would have already been fallen. In fact, he would have been created fallen. Do you really want to say this?
Hello RonD and thanks for bringing up what you wrote. I remember when I was a new Christian back in '73' (that's 1973 and not 1873 by the way <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />) that I really thought I had my theological constructs all lined up in a row pretty nicely. My how I've changed from that day. God is leading you and I onward into the truth but He doesn't do it all at once or it would be just too much for us to handle. That being said, I hope you know that I know I don't know everying <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> I am still in flux. God isn't finished with me yet. I'm not the protestant pope...yet! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />
I wrote before: Did not Adam say "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" intimating he is flesh and thus since the flesh is not able to please God and we see that Adam did not please God when the test came that this therefore shows that I could be correct?
Quote
Zoe, As I already noted, the quick answer to this is that if Adam was flesh upon being created as you say, then prior to his outward disobedience to God he would have already been fallen. In fact, he would have been created fallen. Do you really want to say this?
Dear friend, I need some sola Scriptura for your reply. Could you please give a scripture that says that "Adam fell"?
In 1Cor.15:45 it states that [color:"FF0000"]"Adam became a living soul"[/color] (that happened exactly when God breathed into Adam...and that he was "soulish" which means his being was that which is predominated by things pertaining to the senses. Christ, being the second Adam was Spiritual which is one who is predominated by things pertaining to spirit.
Adam did not become soulish the day he sinned. He was created soulish. If he was perfect like Christ he would not have sinned when the test came.
Adam was created flesh. He didn't become flesh the day he sinned. [color:"FF0000"]"Those who are in flesh cannot please God."[/color] Adam did not sin until he ate the fruit for that was the only command he could break (Thou shalt not eat...." Once that command was broken it was then that Adam sinned. He missed the mark. God was the one that planted the tree in the very midst of the garden. God created the serpent. God created the woman flesh and soulish. God created Adam flesh and soulish. God could have planted the tree way out of the way. He could have kept the serpent away. He could have kept the woman from the serpent. He could have done all sorts of things. Since He did not we must come to the conclusion that He wanted these things to occur so that man could be saved from sin and death which Adam would bring into the world. The fact that [color:"FF0000"]"Christ was slain before the foundation of the world"[/color] shows that God already had it all planned out. Adam nor Eve could do otherwise. But God has to be holy and show mankind what sinning does in that it brings death and alienation so that in the end they can experience life and fellowship and love with God due to the death of the most wonderful Saviour in the entire universe.
It was the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil. They have to know evil so they can know good.
I need some sola Scriptura for your reply. Could you please give a scripture that says that "Adam fell"?
Zoe,
First, it is rather naïve to think that sola Scriptura is at odds with "good necessary inference." But just the same, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good….” “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew they were naked…” “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin….Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression…”
You can connect the dots, Zoe. Is sin very good? No, but prior to the fall everything was very good. Were Adam’s eyes open prior to his disobedience? No, they were opened after he sinned. God’s creation prior to Adam’s transgression was very good, and then sinned entered into the world and death through sin, etc. You deny the fall of man and are suggesting that man was created sinful.
In all frankness, your hermeneutic is that of the cults.
In all frankness, your hermeneutic is that of the cults.
Now that is not a very nice thing to say. I was just trying to be nice and you slam me?
I beg of you if you cannot control your emotions please desist in answering me further. I am trying to have congenial, mature dialog here without emotional slams.
Can it not be good as far as God's plan was concerned that Adam was created soulish and flesh?
Where you quote: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin….Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression…”
Paul was saying that death reigned from Adam to Moses even though they did not eat of any tree of the knowledge of good and evil like Adam did. They died because death passed through into them whether they like it or not. They have no say in the matter.
"The creature (lit. "creation") was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (Rom.8). Adam did not willingly subject himself to vanity. God subjected him to it. And for good reason: "but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature (lit. "creation") itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."
Is that not "good"? It is very good.
How could Adam's eyes be opened when he had not the knowledge of good and evil yet? The only way to get that was to sin and they only way to sin was to break God's commandment and the only way to break God's law was to be made flesh. "7 Because the carnal mind (lit. "flesh") is enmity against God: for it (flesh) is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can (the flesh) be" (Romans 8:7). (I supplied the elipsis in parenthesis).
Is this not good? God is working all together for good is He not? Had Adam not sinned the Saviour could not come to save us from sin. Is this not good?
Zoe said: Now that is not a very nice thing to say. I was just trying to be nice and you slam me?
I beg of you if you cannot control your emotions please desist in answering me further. I am trying to have congenial, mature dialog here without emotional slams.
No personal offence intended, but sometimes the "right" and the "good" are anything but nice. Ron is generally correct in his injunction here. There's nothing emotional here at all, at least not in Ron's comments.
I am quite curious where all this dichotomizing, and the implications you draw thereby, between the "soulish," the "flesh," and the "spiritual" come from, as well as where one finds the rationale that
Quote
the only way to break God's law was to be made flesh
, not to mention the idea that the "flesh" of Adam's original, created, human state, implies "flesh" in the sense of sin.
If we are going to get really stuck on "Sola Scriptura" (which is not a bad thing) I'd appreciate some solid Scriptural proof for these claims.
I would encourage you to go read Romans 5:12 on, especially vs. 15-19. Paul clearly states that sin entered the world through an act of Adam- not his "pre-programmed" nature, but an act.
Zoe offered: "The creature (lit. "creation") was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (Rom.8). Adam did not willingly subject himself to vanity. God subjected him to it. And for good reason: "but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature (lit. "creation") itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."
Zoe,
I'm afraid your exegesis of this passage must be found wanting at best. Paul was speaking of the "creation", i.e., the non-human part of the creation which was apart from Adam. For "it" was made subject to vanity due to the transgression of Adam, who was held responsible for not only the fall of all mankind, but of the entire created world.
What is troubling with your supposition is that the Scriptures speak of Christ as the "second Adam" Who accomplished the restoration of what the first Adam brought into ruin. If Adam was not responsible, then Christ likewise is not responsible for redemption through His voluntary act of atonement. Throw out Adam's responsibility and accountability and you of necessity destroy the entire plan of salvation. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />
Lastly, a similar criticism could be made against your erroneous use of the term, "soulish and flesh". There is nothing in the phrase that could be construed as meaning, "without responsibility".
The biblical teaching is BOTH, God's immutable and indisputable sovereignty AND man's full responsibility. The common error is to either diminish or even deny God's sovereignty in both power and especially authority. But you are erring to the other extreme and denying man's responsibility, from which people could indeed be justified in accusing you of making God the author of sin. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />
<font face="Comic Sans MS">Dear Pilgrim, I appreciate your response. I still cannot find any scripture that states that "Adam was responsible." But I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter. There are, however scriptures which state that due to what Adam did, all mankind were made sinners and due to what Adam did death passed through into all mankind. It seems to me that in Paul's treatise in Romans 5:12-19 that mankind in their relationship to both Adam and Christ are neutral recipients.
Let us look at king David. God wanted to do something to Israel. So what did He do? He made David number Israel. He made David sin so that God could judge Israel.
2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah"
But in 2Sam.24: we see this: "And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly."
Then God sent a prophet to David. It **seems** from the story that David is fully responsible for the death of the 70,000 men but actually the buck stops with God. God wanted those 70,000 men killed and He made David number Israel and thus sin so He could do just that. Yet God did not sin in so doing as He is righteous. David didn't know that God was making him sin in numbering Israel. He thought he was responsible but he was wrong. He was just a vessel used by God to get to those 70,000. In 1Chronicles 21:1 it says that Satan caused David to number Israel. So, like in the days of Job where God let Satan wreck Job's estate thus God used Satan to get to David and also God used Satan to get to the woman to get to Adam.
David's heart smote him when he thought he was responsible for number Israel. But Satan made David number them but God made David number them so the buck stops with God and it stops with God with Adam too. If God is not in control He is out of control.
The same thing happened with Adam. God needed a Saviour to come. God needed all mankind to be made sinners. He needed all mankind to be condemned. The only way to achieve that was to have Adam break His law in the garden. The end justifies the means. God will be seen to be fully righteous in all His dealing with humanity.
Sure, we plan. We want to do this and to do that. We want to go here and go there. But are we really free to do that which our minds and hearts determine we want to do? Not really for James deals rather beautifully with this whole matter here: 13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. 15 For that ye ought to say, <font size="4">If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.</font> We may say, I am going to the grocery store to get some milk. But the reality of the situation is "if the Lord will, and we shall live, then and only then will we succeed in going to the store and getting that milk. Otherwise "all such boasting is evil".
What I dislike about the hyper-Calvinist is that they don't think that there is any need for evangelism. And some H-C people think that "God made me do it," and so illogically they think they can do anything they want. This reminds me of a very bright boy of 4 years old that I knew. His dad believes strongly in God's sovereignty. His son did something wrong one day that required discipline. The son said to his dad "but dad, I had to do it since it had to happen." The father replied, that is very true, and it is just as true that I have to discipline you because that must happen as well." Today the boy is grown up and has a Ph.d. in Math and teaches at Chicago university.
Oh, let us be thankful to God today for all the blessings He has given us. Every gift received is the exact gift He wants us to have and every gift given is the exact gift He wants them to receive. So in effect the gifts come from God and we are to be thankful for all things. God is so very good! He is the perfect Father!</font>
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/BigThumbUp.gif)
<br><br>NOTE: The FAQ section for the new Board is far more extensive than the one here. I suggest again, as it has already been done in your "Welcome Message" when you registered here, that you read the FAQ's [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/readit.gif" alt="readit" title="readit[/img]. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
