Understanding God’s election

[Rufus]

This is a good example of the difficulty encoutntered when casting hypotheticals into a question those things that never did happen.

That's like the question, "What if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit?" It's a dead end rationalizing, which leads to no real destination because it rests solely upon the speculations made by mortals who are not omniscient.

The Lord did not, does not and cannot do that which is against His own nature. So, given this, could the Lord have sinned? I would say no, because sin was not a part of His nature given that He was not of the seed of Adam.

Given that He was tempted; all that shows is that His humanity that He took upon Himself connected Him to the means by which He could experience what mankind experiences with temptation, but He was still governed by His Deity, His higher nature, and thus the question of commission of sin becomes moot and powerless in acquiring any measure of traction upon the surface of reason.

MM

But the Lord has two natures, not just one! This is not only what makes Christ "unique", but far more than that He himself is the embodiment of Incomparability. So, yes, I agree wholeheartedly that the Lord could not do what is contrary to his divine nature but does it logically follow from that as a fully human person that he was totally incapable of sinning? What if the virgin birth was necessary to show that Christ came into this world outside of Adam!? God took on flesh to become his own man, just as Adam was his own man. And by not being in Adam, this means that Jesus never bore Adam's imputed sin!

I'm just tossing food for thought out there...I hope you don't see my as being argumentative. But since Christ is Adam's antitype then I think more consideration has to be given to the "very good", sinless type than most theologians have given in order to arrive at a reasonably sound answer -- if indeed that is even possible by our finite minds in grappling with this profound theological question.

 

[Inquisitor]

How do you understand total depravity?

People can attend church, learn the hymns, and through the power of the will stifle sinful urges, and still never be born from above.
Those who fall away were never saved. It is impossible to be unborn from above. It is a supernatural act of God. It is impossible to be separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus. It is impossible to be taken out of the hands of God the Father or God the Son.

I use the dictionary for all definitions.

Here is an example.

Cambridge Dictionary

Depraved

Morally bad or evil: a depraved character/mind.

Total or absolute depravity: utterly immoral or utterly evil.

Example: Someone who can kill a child like that must be totally depraved.

 

[Inquisitor]

That is indeed a good question.

Have you ever known anyone of that experience in this life?

How would you determine whether they had ever truly believed in the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Christ or not? Would you ask them? What if they said yes, they once believed? What then? What if they said no?

I hope you don't mind that I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this.

MM

Just as people freely choose the sin or evil that they will commit at any time.

So to do people freely choose any good that they will commit at any time.

Did your mother care and nurture you or was your mother always evil?

 

[Inquisitor]

That is indeed a good question.

Have you ever known anyone of that experience in this life?

How would you determine whether they had ever truly believed in the death, burial and resurrection on the third day of Christ or not? Would you ask them? What if they said yes, they once believed? What then? What if they said no?

I hope you don't mind that I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this.

The N.T uses the phrase "fall away" to describe that very event.

 

[Musicmaster]

I use the dictionary for all definitions.

Here is an example.

Cambridge Dictionary

Depraved

Morally bad or evil: a depraved character/mind.

Total or absolute depravity: utterly immoral or utterly evil.

Example: Someone who can kill a child like that must be totally depraved.

Where do you see "depraved" in the Bible? No form of that word exists in my Bible, the KJV; be it depraved, depravity, etc. The NIV uses it, for whatever reason, but not all translations agree on the use of that term.

Additionally, it's an odd practice to make use of English dictionaries to try and establish a doctrinal foundation for anything. For example, the English word "cleave" has two polar opposite definitions in English dictionaries, leaving it to each individual to subjectively pick and choose which one they want to go with, thus creating never-ending debates and circular argumentation.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Just as people freely choose the sin or evil that they will commit at any time.

So to do people freely choose any good that they will commit at any time.

Did your mother care and nurture you or was your mother always evil?

Well, I prefer to let scripture speak for itself:

Romans 7:17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

That's from the NIV, and this from the KJV:

Romans 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Pretty much exactly the same thing. The context of these verses, however, also chip away at the hyper-Calvinistic bent that many have adopted:

Romans 7:14-17
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

This clearly is an address to saved believers, speaking to the fact that when we sin in the things that we would not, then it is sin in us that does it. That much is clear.

So, what, then, is said about and to unbelievers?

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

So, as counterintuitive as TULIP is when one dares read scripture for what it actually says apart from the warps and twists of Calvinistic nonsense and denials of the clear language of God's word, even digging down into the Hebrew and Greek, while also excluding the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts, we are left with a clear picture of free moral agency. That is not to say that we can save ourselves, contrary to the accusation hyper-Calvinists try to shoot our way, free moral agency is a matter of each unsaved individual calling out unto the Lord who has promised salvation to all who call upon His name. Not one verse even hints at the idea that one must be empowered by God with some sort of man-made doctrine of enablement to even seek the One who alone is the Source of all salvation.

So many times I wished I could have debated Sproul, and want to debate MacArthur, but their super star status kept their staff from ever even handing to them my challenges to debate their beliefs and teachings along this line in an open and formal debate venue. Their lack of mutual accountability speaks loud volumes to the super star status and how it isolates them from any and all accountability to those who hear their teachings. They always remain unapproachable and unaccountable except when addressed by another superstar who might have enough audience and clout to influence the book and DVD sales, giving and popularity those two men enjoy within religious circles.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

The N.T uses the phrase "fall away" to describe that very event.

Yes, and that was addressed ONLY to Israel who had to and will have to "endure." That was never addressed to the body of Christ. If you think that you must maintain your salvation in order to allegedly avoid "falling away" from salvation, then that is a belief in works-based salvation on the basis of one's own efforts and and strength.

I asked you this before, but you did not answer...who have you ever known who lost their salvation, and HOW did you ever verify that assumption about someone else? How would you ever be able to peek into the spiritual realm to know your assumption is correct about someone else when looking at them?

MM

 

[Cameron143]

I use the dictionary for all definitions.

Here is an example.

Cambridge Dictionary

Depraved

Morally bad or evil: a depraved character/mind.

Total or absolute depravity: utterly immoral or utterly evil.

Example: Someone who can kill a child like that must be totally depraved.

Total depravity means every aspect of man was affected in the fall. Total meaning the entirety of man, and not evil to the nth degree.

 

[BillyBob]

This is a good example of the difficulty encoutntered when casting hypotheticals into a question those things that never did happen.

That's like the question, "What if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit?" It's a dead end rationalizing, which leads to no real destination because it rests solely upon the speculations made by mortals who are not omniscient.

The Lord did not, does not and cannot do that which is against His own nature. So, given this, could the Lord have sinned? I would say no, because sin was not a part of His nature given that He was not of the seed of Adam.

Given that He was tempted; all that shows is that His humanity that He took upon Himself connected Him to the means by which He could experience what mankind experiences with temptation, but He was still governed by His Deity, His higher nature, and thus the q

You are correct! Introducing a hypothetical while trying to come to a conclusion just muddies the water and generally complicates reaching a rational answer to the original question. I should know better.

 

[Jimbone]

It's why the gospel needs to be preached...

Romans 10:13-15 ~ Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Yes!!, Ding, Ding, Ding!!!!
This is what Paul is building to in Romans. Yes we are without excuse to know there is a God because creation screams it, but we have to hear about Jesus, how are we to know if we do not hear?

This is why taking one verse and building a theology on it often fails. Paul is building on each verse in Romans, it's actually the most "logical" book in the New Testament and is written to be read as a whole. You nailed it though, this was exactly what I was thinking of when reading through. We can know there is a God by everything in creation, but we do have to learn about and choose Jesus. I don't know any of us who'd deny that. The question is who gets the credit for salvation. God because He is sovereign and the author of EVERYTHING, or do I because of "my choice".

I believe God gets ALL glory and can not understand how anyone who is saved by the awesome power of God could disagree.

 

[Musicmaster]

You are correct! Introducing a hypothetical while trying to come to a conclusion just muddies the water and generally complicates reaching a rational answer to the original question. I should know better.

As a clarification, I didn't mean to imply that all hypotheticals are irrational. For instance, if we ask what would happen if Billy-Bob had ended up in his beat up pickup a few feet out beyond the precipice of a cliff, out in mid-air, we all can reasonably conclude that, absent any restraint or propelling apparatus, he would fall victim to gravity, etc.

Those items of enormity in the arena of moral implications, however, such as the fall of man and suggestions of alternatives, they are questions leveled against the Will of the Lord, for we can reasonably conclude that the fall of man was within the Will of the Lord, contrary to the emotional arguments to the contrary, and I've heard some dooseys from some folks in the past.

MM

 

[Magenta]

What if the virgin birth was necessary to show that Christ came into this world outside of Adam!? God took on flesh to become his own man, just as Adam was his own man. And by not being in Adam, this means that Jesus never bore Adam's imputed sin!

I had thought this was generally accepted to be the case...

 

[Magenta]

Total depravity means every aspect of man was affected in the fall. Total meaning the entirety of man, and not evil to the nth degree.

I wonder how many times this needs to be said...

 

[Rufus]

As a clarification, I didn't mean to imply that all hypotheticals are irrational. For instance, if we ask what would happen if Billy-Bob had ended up in his beat up pickup a few feet out beyond the precipice of a cliff, out in mid-air, we all can reasonably conclude that, absent any restraint or propelling apparatus, he would fall victim to gravity, etc.

Those items of enormity in the arena of moral implications, however, such as the fall of man and suggestions of alternatives, they are questions leveled against the Will of the Lord, for we can reasonably conclude that the fall of man was within the Will of the Lord, contrary to the emotional arguments to the contrary, and I've heard some dooseys from some folks in the past.

MM

As I have as well <g>. So, yes, whether we like it or not, it was God's will (permissive, decretive or whatever) that mankind through Adam would fall. Have you or anyone else here ever pondered why God would do that?

 

[Rufus]

I had thought this was generally accepted to be the case...

It probably is. I merely suggested another reason for the virgin birth other than the inherited sin nature. I don't mean to infer, however, that both reasons can't account for the virgin birth. But when discussing the doctrine of Peccability or Impeccability of Christ, I think the lack of a sin nature in Jesus is a sidebar issue that detracts from how Jesus is the antitype to Adam, since Adam did not come into existence with a sinful nature -- yet, he still sinned.

 

[Magenta]

It probably is. I merely suggested another reason for the virgin birth other than the inherited sin nature.
I don't mean to infer, however, that both reasons can't account for the virgin birth. But when discussing
the doctrine of Peccability or Impeccability of Christ, I think the lack of a sin nature in Jesus is a sidebar
issue that detracts from how Jesus is the antitype to Adam, since Adam did not come into existence with
a sinful nature -- yet, he still sinned.

We differ in that you believe Adam was Holy Spirit filled, which upon sinning was removed, while I believe
Adam was of the natural world, and would have been required to eat from the Tree of Life in order to have
the Holy Spirit indwelling him, just as we do. Of course Scripture does not say either way...

PS ~~ peccability .

James 1:14-15; 1 John 2:16 Each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. For all that is in the world- the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life- is not from the Father but from the world. .

 

[Magenta]

As I have as well <g>. So, yes, whether we like it or not, it was God's will (permissive, discretionary or whatever)
that mankind through Adam would fall. Have you or anyone else here ever pondered why God would do that?

Yes... and it is widely acknowledged that God desires those who worship Him in Spirit and
in Truth, as it is written... the Truth being = love cannot be forced, and He, God, is not in the
business of taking hostages, quite contrary to what others here would have some believe.
He draws us with loving kindness...

 

[Magenta]

Yes!!, Ding, Ding, Ding!!!!
This is what Paul is building to in Romans. Yes we are without excuse to know there is a God because creation screams it, but we have to hear about Jesus, how are we to know if we do not hear?

This is why taking one verse and building a theology on it often fails. Paul is building on each verse in Romans, it's actually the most "logical" book in the New Testament and is written to be read as a whole. You nailed it though, this was exactly what I was thinking of when reading through. We can know there is a God by everything in creation, but we do have to learn about and choose Jesus. I don't know any of us who'd deny that. The question is who gets the credit for salvation. God because He is sovereign and the author of EVERYTHING, or do I because of "my choice".

I believe God gets ALL glory and can not understand how anyone who is saved by the awesome power of God could disagree.

Yes, thank you Jim, and good morning! I wonder why this concept is so very difficult for others to grasp,
as I have witnessed for more than a week now as Cameron attempted to draw this truth from others, all
who deflected and refused to answer, showing that they did not grasp the truth of the matter, while
attempting the throw off the discussion of the very pertinent point by asking irrelevant questions,
which they then used to further derail the issue and obfuscate the facts of the matter.

 

[Rufus]

We differ in that you believe Adam was Holy Spirit filled, which upon sinning was removed, while I believe
Adam was of the natural world, and would have been required to eat from the Tree of Life in order to have
the Holy Spirit indwelling him, just as we do. Of course Scripture does not say either way...

PS ~~ peccability .

James 1:14-15; 1 John 2:16 Each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. For all that is in the world- the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life- is not from the Father but from the world. .

Yes, I do believe Adam was indwelt by the Holy Spirit for five reasons. The first is Gen 2:7 which talks about the "breath of life" being breathed into Adam and he became a "living soul" - or some translations read "living creature" or "living being", cf. also 1Cor 15:45. We could interpret that as merely meaning that Adam became physically alive. But I see that as referring to more than just physical life because the question that should be asked: Is how could Adam have died spiritually when he sinned if he didn't have, prior to the Fall, antecedent life within his soul? Death always logically presupposes antecedent life; for only the living can die.

Secondly, we know that spiritual death denotes separation from God, as most Christians would express it. But I think the more accurate description is that spiritual death is the separation from the life of God, from the Author of Life, from Spiritual Life itself. And the Holy Spirit bears the "title" Spirit of Life (Rom 8:2). And we further know from scripture that the Holy Spirit in the OT was given to select people conditionally and that the Spirit could be removed due to one's disobedience, with Saul and Sampson being good examples.

Thirdly, the removal of the Spirit from Adam would also provide more than adequate explanation for how God's image became so badly marred in all of Adam's progeny, since none of us came into this world born alive unto God. All Adam's progeny have come into this world dead to God -- separated from his Life. And the only spiritual remedy for this is to be reborn from above by the Spirit of Life! Therefore, I have to think that God's image in Adam would have also been deeply marred if he had not been gifted with the Spirit of Life when he was created. But how could this be, since God considered all creation to be "very good", which would have included Adam who was the crowning achievement of God.

And the point made immediately above brings me to this one: Could Adam, as a free moral agent made in God's image and likeness, been considered "very good" apart from being united to the life of the Ultimate Good in the universe? In other words, what made this particular and unique image-bearer "very good" was the "breath of life" within his soul -- the "same breath of life" who imparted the Creator's very image unto Adam's soul.

Finally, the only two alternatives to my position seem to be biblically untenable. If Adam wasn't created with spiritual life within, then was he created "dead unto God"? I suspect most Christians would not subscribe to that position, especially since death is antithetical to all that God is! If not, then, was Adam created morally/spiritually neutral? But is there any such thing even remotely hinted at in the bible? As moral beings, as free moral agents and God's image-bearers, we're either good or evil. The bible speaks to no third option of which I'm aware.

As far as the "tree of life" is concerned, I don't think we should take that tree literally. It's a symbol as much as the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was! There was nothing magical in the fruit of this latter tree that actually imparted this knowledge when our first parents ate from it. What gave A&E this knowledge was their lack of trust in God and their subsequent disobedience to Him. Likewise, the "tree of life" symbolized spiritual life and was put into the Garden to teach A&E and all of Adam's progeny that spiritual life was not for the taking by the will of the sons of men but rather is a sacred, holy, eternal and inestimable gift given by God at his discretion. In other words, spiritual life is as much a gift from God as physical life is. And the proof of what I've just said is in the eating (a bad pun intended ). Since God implicitly reconciled Eve unto himself when he placed enmity between her and the Serpent, then this also implies that God granted her life by his very decree. If we agree that God saved Eve then we cannot believe that He left Eve in the spiritual state of death. We mustn't forget that God is not the God of the dead but only of the living (Mat 22:32)! Yet, Eve left the Garden with Adam when God drove HIM out! And there is no record that Eve took from the "tree of life".

P.S. peccable

 

[Rufus]

Yes, thank you Jim, and good morning! I wonder why this concept is so very difficult for others to grasp,
as I have witnessed for more than a week now as Cameron attempted to draw this truth from others, all
who deflected and refused to answer, showing that they did not grasp the truth of the matter, while
attempting the throw off the discussion of the very pertinent point by asking irrelevant questions,
which they then used to further derail the issue and obfuscate the facts of the matter.

I believe this is one strategy that many use to suppress the [inconvenient] truth they don't want to know!