Responce to duecer:

Originally posted by duecer in response to pritybetta in the thread 'Hell'
your theology is straight from the John Calvin playbook. By your own theology, it is pointless to spread the good news, because God has predistined who will be saved. There are numerous refutations to this theology, not the least of which was that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The fact they had the free will to choose to eat from that tree is ironic in itself. The modern evangelical movement (actually starting with John Wesly) is a general refutation of calvinism.

I have never seen a John Calvin playbook. And no I do not think it is pointless to spread the good news. The Lord uses his Word to open the eyes of those who are his children. If we didn't spread the good news then those people would never hear his Word and thus would not open their eyes to the Lord. You say there are numerous refutations to this theology? I have not seen any that are inline with the Word of the Lord. Yes, I do think that Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge had outside forces that caused them to do so, however, they were told not to and did it anyway. Eve did it because she was beguiled by the serpent, and Adam did it because he harkened to the voice of his wife. They were given freedom to eat of any tree but that particular one they were told not to eat of. As for free will, I do not think they truly had free will. However, I do believe they had a spiritual connection with the Lord and when they eat of the tree their connection died, ie. they died spiritually. I have seen too much from the modern evangelical movement that is totally against the Word of God so don't tell me that it is a general refutation of what I believe, which is what I believed before knowing anything about Calvin.

I wanted to start another thread because this would take the other thread too far off topic.

Originally posted by pritybetta
Originally posted by duecer in response to pritybetta in the thread 'Hell'
[b]your theology is straight from the John Calvin playbook. By your own theology, it is pointless to spread the good news, because God has predistined who will be saved. There are numerous refutations to this theology, not the least of which was that Adam and Eve ate from t ...[text shortened]... refutation of what I believe, which is what I believed before knowing anything about Calvin.

All of us humans are God's children. It is His will that they enter into relationship with him (John 3:16). I've written in these forums before about the concept of"prevenient grace". The idea being that God is with us always; we are imbued with the spark of the divine which connects us to Him as His children. God has not set aside "special" people for salvation. That invitation is open to all people.

The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. It is there to teach us about the nature of sin. It shows very clearly that we as humans are, by nature, prone to sin. God said very clearly what they could not do. If they didn't have free will, then the prohibition on eating the fruit is a nonsequitor, and unneccessary to the story. To say that Adam and eve were "tricked" into sin is to be an apologist for sin. In Romans 7 Paul says that the cause of sin are the flesh bodies we inhabit. He says: 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Originally posted by duecer
All of us humans are God's children. It is His will that they enter into relationship with him (John 3:16). I've written in these forums before about the concept of"prevenient grace". The idea being that God is with us always; we are imbued with the spark of the divine which connects us to Him as His children. God has not set aside "special" people for salvat ...[text shortened]... my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

What if I accept Adam and Eve as true story, what is my other choice
about the beginning of life here as humans?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What if I accept Adam and Eve as true story, what is my other choice
about the beginning of life here as humans?
Kelly

it doesn't change the meaning or explaination

=================================
The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. It is there to teach us about the nature of sin. It shows very clearly that we as humans are, by nature, prone to sin.
=====================================

Actually Adam was created and was "very good" along with the rest of creation. He was innocent. He was neutral between God and the enemy of God which was lurking nearby to ruin God's work.

"And God saw everthing that He had made, and indeed it was very good ..." (Gen 1:31)

This would include his physical body also.

There was only one thing which Adam had to do to preserve the goodness of creation. And that was to excercise his dominon and guard the garden.

"And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the arth and subdue it, and have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over every creeping thing that moves upon the earth. (Gen. 1:28; Compare 1:26)

Adam's dominion over the creatures was lost when one of the creatures subdued him instead and lead him to disobey God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

From that eating his being became poisoned and the transmuted body became the negative term "the flesh" which is full of lusts.

Though I do not understand everything about this poisoning, the Apostle Paul tells us that the Satanic spirit began to operate in fallen man:

"And you, though dead in your offenses and sins, in which you onced walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience; ... we also conducted ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh doing the desires of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, as the rest." (Eph. 2:1-3)

The evil spiritual authority of the air, the Satanic spirit began to operate in man after the disobedience of Adam and Eve. It was not until after they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that this evil spirit began to operate in the children of disobedience constituting their nature as sinful.

In some places in the Bible this term, "the flesh", speaks of this fallen nature of man's transmuted body, not the original physical body he was created with.


The nature of Adam was poisoned after his disobedience. He was not created with that sinning nature.


===============================================
God said very clearly what they could not do. If they didn't have free will, then the prohibition on eating the fruit is a nonsequitor, and unneccessary to the story. To say that Adam and eve were "tricked" into sin is to be an apologist for sin.
========================================

Not so. The Bible says that that the woman was deceived into sinning. The husband followed the wife and sinned as well:

"And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been quite deceived, has fallen into transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14)

Furthermore I think we have to realize that Satan is said to have deceived the whole world:

"And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth ..." (Rev. 12:9)

The ancient serpent refers to the serpent in Genesis. By this we know that the Satanic evil spirit had something to do with that lying serpent in the garden. Adam was to have dominion over all the creatures and to guard the garden. Instead he was subdued by the Satanic lie and ended up being under the dominion of the evil spirit of the authority of the air who operates in the sons of disobedience. This has constituted them with a nature which is under God's wrath.

=======================================
In Romans 7 Paul says that the cause of sin are the flesh bodies we inhabit. He says: 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
==========================================


This is true. However, this is the fallen flesh which was poisoned after eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is the flesh after the evil spirit began to operate in man constituting him with a nature which is under God's wrath.

Something horrible happened to man after that food was eaten.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================
The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. It is there to teach us about the nature of sin. It shows very clearly that we as humans are, by nature, prone to sin.
=====================================

Actually Adam was created and was "very good" along with the rest of creation. He was innocent. He was ne rath.

Something horrible happened to man after that food was eaten.[/b]

all true if you take a literal interpretation of the bible. I do not.

I always ignore theological arguments made by using Revelations as the source reference. It was written in "code " to the believers of that time, and is not the divine prophacy many think it is. It was meant to be a letter of hope and encouragement to Christians in hiding.

silly semantics, tricked and decieved are more or less the same. Buy a thesaruas

Originally posted by duecer
silly semantics, tricked and decieved are more or less the same. Buy a thesaruas

What did the Apostle Paul mean by the term "the likeness of the flesh of sin?" He said that Jesus came in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

"... God sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3b)


If Jesus had this flesh which you say by nature has the sin in it simply by reation (appealing to Romans 7 ), then why does Paul just say that Jesus came in this sinful flesh? Why would he say He came only in the likeness of the flesh of sin?"

According to the typology of the brass serpent, who signifies Jesus Christ, the children of Israel were bitten and poisoned by fiery serpents. This typology in John chapter 3 signifies the fall of man. And the brass serpent which had the form of a serpent but not the actual poison of the serpent symbolizes Jesus:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that eveyone who believes into Him may have eternal life" (John 3:14)

Refer back to Numbers 21:4-9. The Israelites were bitten by poisoness serpents and poisoned.

God told Moses to lift up a bronze serpent on their behalf for God's judgment, that by looking upon that bronze serpent all might live who were poisoned.

That was a type. In John 3 Jesus applied the type to Himself, indicating that He was in the flesh, He was in "the likeness of the flesh of sin" (Romans 8:3).

The bronze serpent had the form of a serpent but without the poison of a serpent. Jesus Christ had a normal created physical body but it was not participant in sin in any way (2 Cor.; Heb. 4:15)

When He was lifted up on the cross, by His death Satan, the old serpent with the poison, was dealt with (John 1`2:31-33; Hebrews 2:14).

This means that the serpentine nature which was in fallen man was dealt with.

Originally posted by duecer
all true if you take a literal interpretation of the bible. I do not.

I always ignore theological arguments made by using Revelations as the source reference. It was written in "code " to the believers of that time, and is not the divine prophacy many think it is. It was meant to be a letter of hope and encouragement to Christians in hiding.

[qs]I always ignore theological arguments made by using Revelations as the source reference. It was written in "code " to the believers of that time, and is not the divine prophacy many think it is. It was meant to be a letter of hope and encouragement to Christians in hiding.[/qs]


In time you may change.

The book tells us that it is prophecy. So to say that it is not directly contradicts what it says about itself.

"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of the prophecy" (19:10)

"And they said to me, You must prophesy again over many peoples and nations and tongues and kings." (10:11)

"The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to HIm to show His slaves the things that must quickly take place ..." (1:1)

It may be a difficult book. But that is no reason to dismiss it.

There is not really anything totally new in the book of revelation. A major key to understanding its symbols is to review how those symbols were previously used elsewhere in the Scriptures.

Lastly, I think to say that it is about encouragement instead of prophecy is a rather silly false dichotomy. Prophecy very often IS for encouragement. So why the "encouragement NOT prophecy" false dichotomy?

Originally posted by duecer
All of us humans are God's children. It is His will that they enter into relationship with him (John 3:16). I've written in these forums before about the concept of"prevenient grace". The idea being that God is with us always; we are imbued with the spark of the divine which connects us to Him as His children. God has not set aside "special" people for salvat ...[text shortened]... my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Jaywill pretty much covered everything except your statement of "All of us humans are God's children. It is His will that they enter into relationship with him (John 3:16). " That also contradicts the Bible for Christ himself said some were of their father the Devil.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If Christ referred to some as being of their father the Devil, they must not be children of God. He also said that some were not of his sheep and that there were vessels of wrath:

Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Also If it were the will of God that all enter into relationship with him they would for who can hinder him?

Job 11:10 If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?

You can not believe in free will if you believe these verses which are part of the Word of God.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

to all that I am debating here: you are biblical literalist, I am not. We will NEVER agree on any of these points. So I won't waste anymore of your time (or mine) in responding.

Originally posted by pritybetta
...... Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Youre blind as a bat. Paul persecuted and killed many Christians.
But God changed this murderer - formerly a child of the Devil - into somebody good. Therefore God is capable of making the unclean clean, and God can change the leapard's spots and God can make the evil doer do good.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Youre blind as a bat. Paul persecuted and killed many Christians.
But God changed this murderer - formerly a child of the Devil - into somebody good. Therefore God is capable of making the unclean clean, and God can change the leapard's spots and God can make the evil doer do good.

Yes, you are right, God changed this former child of the Devil into a child of God. Paul did not do it on his own, he had no free will to choose Christ. The Lord is the one who made the unclean man(Paul in this case) clean. And yes, God can change the leapard's spots, that is my point. The leapard can not change his spots, only the Lord can do that.😉

BTW, I knew this before you posted. I am glad you know this too.

Originally posted by pritybetta
Yes, you are right, [b]God changed this former child of the Devil into a child of God. Paul did not do it on his own, he had no free will to choose Christ. The Lord is the one who made the unclean man(Paul in this case) clean. And yes, God can change the leapard's spots, that is my point. The leapard can not change his spots, only the Lord can do that.😉

BTW, I knew this before you posted. I am glad you know this too.[/b]

Did God ask Paul permission before he changed him from a child of the devil to a child of God? If not, does this not violate Paul's free will? If Paul did grant God permission to change him into a child of God could it not be said that Paul "choose" Christ?