Anti- Calvinists Ignore the Fall !

[ttruscott]

Adam's sin is inherited. In Matthew 25 it is referred to as "the curse." When humans are conceived, that corruption is passed on from Adam on down to the present.
God could have created a new Adam and started all over again. God didn't. He, instead, chooses to reconcile some of Adams offspring to himself. This is the message from Genesis to Revelation.

You mean HE chose to create some people as evil against all HIS righteousness and the injustice in doing this to innocents who never chose evil.

It is interesting that you hate God...

your inference that I must hate GOD because I champion HIM as true to HIS nature and attributes that HE never created any evil person against HIS own righteousness and sense of perfect justice is pretty revealing about who may hate the righteous GOD that does NOT create evil people. What kind of people would rather believe that the GOD who is a spring of pure life giving water suddenly put forth poisonous water, that the tree of life giving fruit put forth rotten poisonous fruit and created evil people than believe we chose to be evil by our free will so that our becoming evil was by our own fault only! IF HE did create us evil in Adam, HE is a house divided... an impossibility.

 

[MennoSota]

You mean HE chose to create some people as evil against all HIS righteousness and the injustice in doing this to innocents who never chose evil.

your inference that I must hate GOD because I champion HIM as true to HIS nature and attributes that HE never created any evil person against HIS own righteousness and sense of perfect justice is pretty revealing about who may hate the righteous GOD that does NOT create evil people. What kind of people would rather believe that the GOD who is a spring of pure life giving water suddenly put forth poisonous water, that the tree of life giving fruit put forth rotten poisonous fruit and created evil people than believe we chose to be evil by our free will so that our becoming evil was by our own fault only! IF HE did create us evil in Adam, HE is a house divided... an impossibility.

I mean...
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. ~ Romans 5:12
God is clear on this, yet you seem unwilling to accept what God says.
Why do you hate God?

 

[ttruscott]

I mean...
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. ~ Romans 5:12
God is clear on this, yet you seem unwilling to accept what God says.
Why do you hate God?

And when did you quit beating your wife?

FOR is
1909. epi Strong's Concordance
epi: on, upon
Original Word: ἐπί
Part of Speech: Preposition
Definition: on, upon
Usage: on, to, against, on the basis of, at.

I know you'd rather read it 'because they received Adam's sin' but it does not say that: it say on the basis of their sin meaning because of their being sinners with NO CONNOTATION as to when they became sinners at all. Your theology taught you to think like this and to explain away how light creates darkness...how good creates evil.

 

[MennoSota]

And when did you quit beating your wife?

FOR is
1909. epi Strong's Concordance
epi: on, upon
Original Word: ἐπί
Part of Speech: Preposition
Definition: on, upon
Usage: on, to, against, on the basis of, at.

I know you'd rather read it 'because they received Adam's sin' but it does not say that: it say on the basis of their sin meaning because of their being sinners with NO CONNOTATION as to when they became sinners at all. Your theology taught you to think like this and to explain away how light creates darkness...how good creates evil.

What does a wife have to do with all people being born in sin due to Adam's fall?
As for your attempt at pointing out a Greek preposition, the verse is still saying that we are born in sin.
You must realize that your position was declared heresy when Augustine utterly destroyed Pelagius theories.
https://www.monergism.com/augustine-and-pelagius

 

[JudgeRightly]

I mean...
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. ~ Romans 5:12
God is clear on this, yet you seem unwilling to accept what God says.
Why do you hate God?

Asking loaded questions is bad form.

 

[ttruscott]

What does a wife have to do with all people being born in sin due to Adam's fall?
As for your attempt at pointing out a Greek preposition, the verse is still saying that we are born in sin.
You must realize that your position was declared heresy when Augustine utterly destroyed Pelagius theories.
https://www.monergism.com/augustine-and-pelagius

Augustine and Pelagius were two sides of the same counterfeit coin arguing over who was the head and who was the horse's tail...

And to show you how mistaken your understanding is I agree 100% with the idea that the verse is saying that we (every human except Christ) are conceived and born in sin. I also disagree 100% with any idea that we got that sin from being created that way by the GOD of loving, righteous justice or any other way at all except our own free will decision to sin against HIM.

 

[MennoSota]

Augustine and Pelagius were two sides of the same counterfeit coin arguing over who was the head and who was the horse's tail...

And to show you how mistaken your understanding is I agree 100% with the idea that the verse is saying that we (every human except Christ) are conceived and born in sin. I also disagree 100% with any idea that we got that sin from being created that way by the GOD of loving, righteous justice or any other way at all except our own free will decision to sin against HIM.

No, Augustine and Pelagius were arguing God as the Sovereign King or humans as independent sovereigns.

As to your second point, you make no sense.
Humans are 100% conceived and born in sin, but God did not create them that way.
Was God sleeping when the person was conceived? Is God essentially removed from His creation so that for all intents and purposes he is dead? You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[ttruscott]

No, Augustine and Pelagius were arguing God as the Sovereign King or humans as independent sovereigns.

As to your second point, you make no sense.
Humans are 100% conceived and born in sin, but God did not create them that way.
Was God sleeping when the person was conceived? Is God essentially removed from His creation so that for all intents and purposes he is dead? You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Do not judge my ability by your inability - James Keating.
Do not judge my understanding by your lack of understanding - someone else.
Instead of panicking and attacking, why not make a real effort to discuss?

I categorically deny that any man in his life has any influence over his election or non-election by any good work or evil work or replying to the gospel or by GOD seeing anything in HIS life to decide to elect him to salvation and heaven. So stuff your Pelagian theory into the fire, eh?

Augustine's understanding that man has free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas) and that salvation of sinners is totally by grace through faith is some improvement though it denies that our lives are predestined by GOD which denies our free will BUT his understanding of the fall that the sin of Adam is inherited by all human beings is just wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

Do not judge my ability by your inability - James Keating.
Do not judge my understanding by your lack of understanding - someone else.
Instead of panicking and attacking, why not make a real effort to discuss?

I categorically deny that any man in his life has any influence over his election or non-election by any good work or evil work or replying to the gospel or by GOD seeing anything in HIS life to decide to elect him to salvation and heaven. So stuff your Pelagian theory into the fire, eh?

Augustine's understanding that man has free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas) and that salvation of sinners is totally by grace through faith is some improvement though it denies that our lives are predestined by GOD which denies our free will BUT his understanding of the fall that the sin of Adam is inherited by all human beings is just wrong.

First, there is no panic.
Second, you are merely regurgitating the heretical teachings of Pelagius. Please address this very real problem in your argument.
https://www.monergism.com/augustine-and-pelagius

 

[glorydaz]

If he was not a sinner, he was not under the law of death...Jeremiah 31:30 Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. with Ezek 18:4, and so would not have died.

Death proves sin. No holy elect angels will ever die.

Adam's sin brought death into the world...so all men die, even those who had not sinned like Adam. All of creation was corrupted when sin entered the world.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.​

I was asking what law Adam would be under that would find him guilty of sin.

 

[Right Divider]

Adam's sin brought death into the world...so all men die, even those who had not sinned like Adam. All of creation was corrupted when sin entered the world.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.​

I was asking what law Adam would be under that would find him guilty of sin.

This one:

Gen 2:17 KJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

 

[ttruscott]

I was asking what law Adam would be under that would find him guilty of sin.

1.

1 John 2:7 I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.” It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning” usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, that is, the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 for the devil sinneth from the beginning.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.” This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

The law Adam was under was the same law Satan rebelled against: 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, AS HE GAVE US COMMANDEMENT.

When the word “beginning” has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1, that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became” in Genesis 1:2). Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to pre-conception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning. To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

 

[glorydaz]

1.

1 John 2:7 I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.” It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning” usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, that is, the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 for the devil sinneth from the beginning.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.” This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

The law Adam was under was the same law Satan rebelled against: 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, AS HE GAVE US COMMANDEMENT.

When the word “beginning” has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1, that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became” in Genesis 1:2). Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to pre-conception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning. To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

That's a stretch that simply doesn't hold up.

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

John 8:25Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.​

 

[ttruscott]

There are at least 3 beginnings of course: the beginning of creation, the beginning of earthy life, the beginning of Christ's ministry...That John could have been talking about the beginning of creation is a logical and possible interpretation except for those who follow the rabbis and the early Catholics (paragons of spiritual knowledge as we know) that we are created here on earth which is impossible to reconcile with Scripture.