Waiting for what? Maybe you mean a different word than syllable.
ECT Classical Vs. Biblical Original Sin - Order of Judgment and Consequences (Part 2)
- Thread starter Evil.Eye.<(I)>
- Start date
Waiting for what? Maybe you mean a different word than syllable.
Lon
Well-known member
It wasn't that, I'm already in this exact discussion on my thread. An extra thread (3rd of 3) would have me stretched a bit thin. I can barely keep track of two. Enter the 3rd, and I think the best I can do is pos rep you along. I will try, if mine winds down a bit, but I'm having to do a lot of research and background reading at the moment. I've never had to argue this point before. I just left that liberal dead church. They were completely Pelagian and so I've seen where the doctrine leads. I don't blame Christians for this doctrine, I see it as 'a little bit of Jesus' and a 'whole lot of me with Him hanging on the side' doctrine. That, at least, is where everyone in the United Methodist Church is at today. Luke 7:47 (kind of like Boeing). I as a seven year old, didn't love much. As a 15 year old, I was passionate about my Lord Jesus Christ and knew within 3 years, I'd be leaving that 'not very passionate' church. At LEAST, at the very least, Original Sin doctrine has us adherents, necessarily needing to love much. Mark 2:17 Luke 5:31 Matthew 9:11-13 Again, Luke 7:47 I was one of the sick and it wasn't just a cold. I needed a Savior.
In general, Pelagians are the Liberal and Mormons. It is creeping into fundamental evangelical circles. Charles Finney, incredibly, got people going to church, but that social gospel movement not only produces some evangelical churches, but a lot of liberal and dead churches in its wake. Charles and John Wesley would have despised the Methodist church today, but they were too close to Catholicism. I'm not interested in a Revival of many church-goers. I'm interested in the Salvation and 'much love' of lost sick souls.
"I commanded you" ... "because you listened to your wife" ... When we read this account, we are led to the idea that God said do, man goofed and all "hell" broke loose.
If you say Adam goofed and so God gave us a "one size fits all" punishment for goofing... you've missed the "Christology" of the matter. You are placing the matter of "sin" on obedience and missing the greater message of mercy and typification.
This is harsh, but I think you are provoking the more aggressive side of me for the discussions sake and I believe you are doing this as a friend with an interest in biblical adherence. Here goes...
Satan saw the mechanism of Creation as a obedience based set of dominoes to topple. What was his end game? Self exaltation and authority that rivaled God's. He assumed that getting Adam and Eve to exalt him over God would destroy the entire plan of God and set him on a collision coarse for rule and authority based on the deception of... God Himself.
Satan clearly thinks on a logical and obedience based plane.
Love is so much different than the "One size fits all" approach as Love looks to the heart of the person and the heart of the matter.
God immediately responded to Satan with condemnation for Corrupting Adam and Eve through the deception of Eve. (1 Tim. 2:14). God even dropped the gospel right in front of Satan in a way that Satan is "Spiritually" blind to.
God then turns to Eve and admonishes her in a way that binds her to "labor". If you are thinking punish and pain... you are missing it. What "birth pains" is God referring to? Nick... give me some answer beyond a simple reference to "child bearing pains of every mother". Think national Israel... think Jesus... Think... 2nd coming... but don't leave this at the initial first layer meaning. You know damn well that it goes deeper than the surface of the matter.
God then turns to Adam and talks of toil in the soul and dust. Again... this goes so much deeper than gardening and death. Cain toiled the soil and tried to give God the harvest that he had "plucked from the earth" that God had forced labor upon... but that wasn't good enough and Adam lived many years before he actually died.
Nick... details... the Devil is in them.
Is the snake just a snake, the obedience just obedience and the words of consequence from God to the three involved in the crime just words of an irritated God that demands rigid adherence and responds with global rebuke?
Well Nick? What say you?
You are forgetting Eph. 5:25 ...
Last edited:
Lon,
Have you ever tried to make a point that threatened someone else's self embraced lie, so they keep blurting out things that totally show they don't understand any part of your point except that it threatens theirs?
I was raised by a Jewish mother and a semi-Calvinist father. In fact, my father was a minister for over 40 years. I have never seen so many dead churches in my life. The further I tried to wade into the Calvinism waters, the more hateful the people got and the more rediculous they got about making God out to be a bigoted, hostile deity that wasn't too far from a kid with a magnifying glass eager to punish those He had predestined to disobey Him.
What did my story and point mean? Absolutely nothing sensible in proving a point. It was the equivalent of a liberal Snow Flakes label maker that limits the ability of non snow flake people to assert and explore new ideas that contradict their own, liberal snow flake ideas.
You can do better Lon! Every time I start to add the 5 Sola's to my signature, you go and make false statements like the following that are void of an address to anything I'm actually saying!
Get on point Lon! I'm cool if you can't answer me because you're tied up on other threads, but don't try that one size fits all bunk with me, please.
Lon
Well-known member
Its good to see both sides of the discussion. Interesting, I just told Jerry all of this sort of thing in the other thread. It is odd we have both come from liberal dead churches. A pastor father and a Jewish mother? Incredibly unique, and yet, I think you correct, only a liberal church would that be seen. As I said, I will try to contribute where I can, but feel like the topic already is being discussed and this third thread stretches it out a might. In Him -Lon
Calvinism? Only in liberal churches... Fair enough... Liberal Reform... is that like liberal arts?
Ps... I don't have to blame Adam for my need for Jesus... I have done quite fine in my own life, through failure, proving to myself that I need Jesus Christ more than anything else in my life.
Jesus is my only hope and I know I'm a sinner... how did I figure this out without blaming Adam for my own mistakes? :idunno:
Why the blame game? Isn't accountability important?
It strikes me as odd that you don't want people to read these threads and are going to great lengths to discredit them without understanding what is actually being said. You sincerely have no idea, because you haven't addressed the points being made once they step outside of the lines of your doctrine understanding...
Sincerely... you are labeling matters falsely and trying to surpress what is being said.
Why? Is blaming Adam for our sins that important to classical Theism, that accountability is worthless?
I need Jesus because I personally know I have the need for Jesus.
glorydaz
Well-known member
It's necessary that these truths be nipped in the bud. If they aren't, people will see what a falsehood the entire doctrine of TULIP is. The depravity of man is essential to that doctrine, and free will is strictly forbidden. Man has to be helpless and hopeless so God can pick and choose according to His personal whim. It's disturbing to what lengths people will go to prove that God is unjust and tyrannical.
Labelling people is all they have because the scripture does not support what they claim.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't get what he means by that, either. Perhaps he'll make it clear.
Nick is like a razor, cutting to the material I'm trying to move slow with. But, he wore me down and I "mostly answered" this point here.
The last scripture given is a major hint.
Answered Here... LINK.
One point at a time. You are trying to build on something, we all do it. But you can't build if the foundation is false. I just pointed out what the Bible says. And on the first or second page, depending on the font size it says this.
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
And as such, Paul tells us this.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
If you are trying to make a point of silly things like infant water baptism, you will get no argument from me. It's nonsense. However, you appear to be claiming that 5:18 doesn't exist or is not true. All are condemned because Adam listened to his wife instead of God and ate the fruit.
Lon
Well-known member
For me: It explains my need. I sin. "Why do I sin?" Because.... Whatever we come up with, if we have been forgiven much, we love much. So next, for me: If I was totally depraved (and I mean totally without God in my life), then my need is complete and I'm all-in on this hand. Ephesians 2:12You started a similar discussion about poker, I think 'all-in' is what you and I would understand the most about our need for the Lord Jesus Christ. I'd simply say, Pelagian or Calvinist (we both are ejected from Catholicism), we must have an understanding that we are 'all-in.' 2 Corinthians 5:17Calvinism? Only in liberal churches... Fair enough... Liberal Reform... is that like liberal arts?
Ps... I don't have to blame Adam for my need for Jesus... I have done quite fine in my own life, through failure, proving to myself that I need Jesus Christ more than anything else in my life.
Jesus is my only hope and I know I'm a sinner... how did I figure this out without blaming Adam for my own mistakes? :idunno:
Why the blame game? Isn't accountability important?
Goes both ways, we seldom are interested in the "other side." You've made the effort, so I will try. My reluctance is on several points: 1) I don't want to alienate people. Maybe I need to, but I don't want to, and this topic is DEFINITELY polarizing. Some have been mad at me this past week. I've lost a 2nd cousin, my dog, and I've been having allergy difficulties. Add alienating or making friends angry, and you can see reluctance, and an unwillingness to go the extra mile and alienate them the rest of the way. It bothers me and I'm weighing "Is it worth it?" 2) While I am adamant that good doctrine is important, and I do feel up to task, seeing the pain it may cause may not be worth it. In some ways, I plan better: I'd try to go in the 'back door' as it were or 'over the fence' instead of attacking the front door. If one is tenaciously holding to free will, for instance, I remember and at one time resembled that guy. A frontal attack by anybody but the Lord Jesus Christ, had me bolting and chaining, and nailing the front door shut. Nobody likes their very selves (as they understand self) assailed. Taking up our cross is a 'very being personal assault' kind of affront. 3) I'm not well versed in this discussion. Oh, I think I know what I'm talking about, but I 'think' others who have had this conversation may understand how best to proceed without stepping on toes. Me? :nono: I stepped on toes already. Twice burned, twice shy. It is part of #1's concern, but further: It is wondering if "I" am that guy. Maybe my feet are too big for this dance AND another will see my poor dance and it'll overshadow the need and attempt. Nobody wants to dance with a clod and they may come to hate dancing altogether, or worse, never with me again. (may have already happened). So, part of this is about 'practice' before I hurt another.
I think we all mostly see our own view and avoid or slam the other guy. Why? Part of it is regarding how we came to Christ. Part of it is previous study AND subsequent evaluations based on that study. In this case, I'm against a 'casual' need for Savior. It is that 'all-in' understanding of being in Christ. John 15:5 For me too, I've been frustrated. I know (KNOW) I've messed it up, and can again. Romans 8:28 first, was all (ALL) about Him, then, He was/is my only (ONLY) hope of ever getting anything right. Iow I'm "all-in" and have come to realize He must increase, and I must decrease. John 3:30
For me: The reason I am accountable as well as realizing 1) Why I do it 2) How desperate my pre-saved condition is.
It isn't as much a blame game, as much as it is an understanding. For me, I had to realize 'how' much I had been forgiven (all-in).
Me too, but realizing I have a 'constant' need for the Lord Jesus Christ John 15:5 and Ephesians 2:10, my need is 'all-in.' My salvation need is immersion, completely buried with Christ. Pelagianism, in the church I was in, meant a reserve and hedged bet. I realized Christianity and my walk with the Savior had to become all-in, so a "Total" need gave me no hedged bet.
It goes far beyond infant baptism and such. When I genuinely allowed Jesus to "know" me, scripture became transformed before my very eyes. You well know that I cling to John 5:39
39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
Christ's Love is at the forefront of my soul as I read scripture. This is my motive in what I am writing.
"Classical Origonal Sin" glosses over two portions of the scriptures you read. It glosses over motive and mechanism. Paul gives both. You can't simply use those two scriptures as the full picture, because there are others that COS doesnt take into account. By rolling Adam into sin and christology all in one swoop, the core message of Love is missed in the garden.
Supporting scriptures for Adam's motive... please tell me if you are clicking on these, because they are crucial. If I need to repost to you and post every scripture, I will.
(Gen. 2:18; 2:23: Eph. 5:25, 2f, 28, 33; Col. 3:19; 1 Pt. 3:7; Gen. 24:67; 2 Sam. 12:3; Prov. 5:18f)
You are unique, because you are evaluating and challenging everything I've written here, as there has been a fair lack of challenge or response that comes right from scripture from any other.
I don't dispute any of the verses that you are citing, but instead recall more verses in conjunction with this topic.
Ask yourself these questions...
Why did Adam "allow" Eve to "choose"? Then, ask yourself why God allowed Satan to Deceive, Eve to be deceived and Adam to partake. Not done yet! Ask yourself what was Adams motive for partaking when he partook, knowing full well that death was the consequence. Scripture is clear that Adam knew full well what he was doing. Think of Heb. 2:14. Come on Nick... You're more than dispensationaly capable of solving this puzzle through scripture.
The second matter is that 3 parties are involved. I'll simply point you to one scripture and see if you latch on to the "meat" of the matter... (John 8:7)
The three parties represent Death, Sin and Law, as well. The three parties represent Jesus, The Bride of Christ and Literally.... Satan. The three parties represent Ignorance, Self Saccrifice and Opression.
Come on Nick... quit spinning those theological tires and let this grab! Surely you can see it! This launches so clean and strong, that it blazes the rest of scripture towards dispensational events in a manner that lines up beyond clarity.
One final piece of information... For now... Adam listening to his soon to die wife is like Jesus listening to our need for salvation. (2 Co. 5:21)
Could Adam have said... "you stupid woman"... oh well... God can take another rib, you're too much trouble. Now die already?
He sure could have! Could God have said that to each of us? You bet.
Why doesn't He? (1 Co. 13; 1 John 4:8)
Do you "see" it?
I will respond as soon as I can sit down and do so. But... I know you're not reading what I'm writing because you just stated in the background that "Adam's choice didn't save her". I agree. But, he clearly took on death because he didn't want to "live" without her.
And... you're forgetting a verse... (1 Cor. 7:16)
You can't just quote supporting doctrine verses and make guesses then say... aha!
Step it up brother!
Lon
Well-known member
The observation goes both ways. In an ironic twist, you didn't respond to any of my post either :Z
"If" I'm seeing you as obtuse, I'm at least leaving off the accusation in patience but I don't think you reading or understanding any of us either.
Please reread and at some level, respect my reservations because this too, right here, right now, is part of it.
Lon,
I have compassion for what you have written. I have to confess... it is the idea that you are looking at discussion through a lens that is pre-made, that doesn't address what is actually being said that has frustrated me. However... you are my brother in Christ. Instead of attacking you, rebutting you or calling you names, I will simply state that what is being discussed is Theology, while we are mutually in continual need for Jesus.
This boils down to this... Theology doesn't and can't save us... Only Jesus can save us. In this I will read your counter view on this matter, and allow you to belittle my ideas without rebuttal. This way, I won't feel like I'm placing ideas over Jesus and our Friendship.
What I can't do is stop talking about how amazing Jesus is or how wonderful His ways are. I have been struggling to avoid attack of reform to afford a brain, spirit, heart, soul and scripture led discussion about ideas, without being scolded by people that have conformed doctrine that was settled for them by others.
Sincerely, and Not sure where to process everything going on right now,
- EE
About big feet... Have you ever seen me discuss matters for more than several days without stepping on toes? I'm guilty of the same matter. Perhaps this is one more reason I like you Lon. Sons of Thunder, whether soft spoken or loud, are necessary and "keep people on their toes".
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I agree Adam was ignorant.
What do you say he was ignorant of?
We clearly disagree on this matter and I can get pretty scathing... I believe that this is the time to recognize that you have a right to express your perspective on the matter.
I dislike the idea that conceding my observations on what is occurring here could sway the discussion. I want to figure out how to assure you that this isn't unhealthy to discuss, nor would I ever "undermine" Jesus or our need for Him.
In fact... I would suggest that if I could be heard, you would find that my perspective ends up showing our utter need for Jesus in a supreme way that is based on Love, Relationship, Mercy, Compassion, Friendship, and need for Him that is perpetual.
But then... I would be perpetuating this argument, and you are too good a friend and too focused on Jesus of a brother to discard over petty disagreement.
No sibling in Jesus should be at actual odds with another on this matter. We are bound in Him and that is permanent. I hope others don't feel this is worth hostility over. I don't admonish the grace based. That is a rule of thumb for me. A fruit inspector or worker bee might get a stiff punch from me... but... that's not the case for the grace based like the majority of those of us who are discussing this matter.
- EE
Last edited:
Hello 1Mind...
To clarify... the "ignorant" party in reference is Eve, per 1 Tim. 2:14. However, to be of "1Mind1Spirit", I will confess that I think of Adam and Eve as human children, lavished with the blessing of free will and innocence. In this... Adam and Eve were both "ignorant", which is why the old dragon was sincerely vicious in this matter.
To directly address your question... about Adam, which I hadn't considered... Adam was ignorant of the actual consequences of what would occur if He "ate" of the fruit after Eve, beyond the concept of death. I have always been told that fear of loss is a powerful motivator and I think Adam was "afraid" of losing Eve that very moment that she gave in to the "dragon".
To go ahead and clarify on the set of three that you addressed...
Ignorance... Eve was a child that was legitimately deceived and this is a picture of humanity that doesn't understand the utter perfection, Love, provision and necessity of God. Satan made her feel inadequate and lacking with his wording, then proceeded to entice Eve with lies so condemning that it can only be clear how hateful he really is.
Self Sacrifice... Adam clearly knew that eating of the fruit was horrible and he most likely felt that Eve... Bone of Bone, Flesh of his Flesh, was about to die. It is implied in a total view of all scripture that Adam would have rather died than be without Eve. He was ignorant that God was Loving and would provide for him and Eve no matter what circumstances had occurred. He was clearly questioning if God would assist them if only Eve ate of the fruit.
Oppression... This came from the dragon and it still does. I'm far from that "the devil is under every rock" guy. But, to read scripture and not look for the devil's lies, could result in imputing some of the devil's lies into the very nature of God.
Thank you for the excellent question. I welcome any more like it that you have, as it allows an open discussion on the matter....
How about you? How do you see that Adam was ignorant?
You missed the part about one point at a time. Adam didn't allow anything. He listed to his wife instead of God and ate the fruit. God explicitly states this in Genesis 3....through Moses.
God is not a micro-manager. The Bible bears this out. Does he intervene? Yes! Does he micro-manage? No! But because Adam sinned, the world is condemned. And not just man.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
The law reveals sin. You know this right? The law is a tutor to show you need a savior. People covet, and the law teaches us that we are unrighteous because of it. The law proves our guilt. Jesus demanded Israel keep the law, but don't forget he told them that Moses will be their accuser. Meaning the law Moses gave.
Here is an easy one for you. Do yo deserve to die the second death?
Paul with stood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed. Think about it.
I will state this. Christianity in the Body of Christ is not a changed life. It is an exchanged life. You should do what is right because it is right. Don't think you do right and God looks at your filthy rags and says "good job".