On another site where I have occasionally commented about issues related to divine sovereignty, a reader left the comment and questions below. Since the moderator on that site tends to be hostile towards Calvinists, and since these are interesting topics for readers of THEOparadox, I have elected to respond here.
Pamela wrote:
"Hi Derek, I have recently been reading with interest your dialogue with Matt “Strider” from a number of years ago. I have not yet finished the entire thread, but I appreciated both of your efforts to illuminate the differing doctrines. It does seem to me that both of you danced around the crucial point, although I would say Matt came a little bit closer to addressing it. The issue of whether we can freely choose white socks or blue socks is irrelevant. Even the issue of whether we can freely choose to sin or not is irrelevant. Christ’s work on the cross is complete. Our proclivity to continue sinning does not affect the sufficiency of his completed work. I have some hypothetical questions for you that I think get more to the point.
1) Can a non-elect person choose to put their faith in Christ, and worship and serve him throughout their life? Conversely, can an elect person reject Christ and refuse to worship and serve him throughout their life?
2) If the answer to those questions is yes, will the non-elect person who spent his life faithfully worshiping and serving Christ still be eternally condemned? And conversely, will the elect person who rejected Christ throughout his life still go to heaven?
I hope these questions are straightforward enough to warrant a straightforward answer. Thank you in advance."
I appreciate these questions and the opportunity to clarify a few items regarding Reformed Theology, at least as I understand and embrace its tenets. In order to adequately answer these questions, we must distinguish between what we might call "basic ability" and "moral ability," and we must define "elect" and "non-elect."
To the first question, I would answer that there is a sense in which a non-elect person can believe in Christ, worship, and serve Him. Both elect and non-elect persons have a heart/mind/soul which has the basic ability to trust in any person or concept that is encountered (and, in fact, every person does by necessity place faith in various persons or ideas). Each of us has this basic capacity and ability to trust or not trust as we move through life. We also have the basic ability to worship anything we encounter and serve anyone we encounter, whether we are elect or non-elect.
The elect certainly have this basic ability to reject Christ, and refuse to worship or serve Him, and indeed they exercise this ability consistently prior to their conversion.
With that said, we must also recognize a sense in which it is impossible for a non-elect person (or an unregenerated elect person) to trust in Christ. As sinners, though we may have the basic ability, we lack the moral ability to trust Christ (as an illustration of this distinction, I have the basic ability to eat liver, but lack the moral ability, so I never eat liver). Our hearts/minds/souls are bent against Christ and simply unwilling to trust Him, though we have hearts/minds/souls that are capable of exercising such trust. In our eyes, when we are in the unregenerate state, He has no value or trustworthiness to us. Thus, while having the basic ability to trust in Him or anyone else we encounter, we lack the moral ability to trust in Him (choosing unfortunately to trust in ourselves instead--which epitomizes our horrific bondage to sin and selfishness).
With regeneration comes the moral ability to trust in Christ as our eyes are opened by the Lord and we begin to see the worthiness, power, love and faithfulness of Jesus. Then we trust Him. Then we worship and serve Him. I nearly weep now with exuberant joy as I consider the way this miracle of regeneration was given to me by grace and changed my hardened heart to a heart of love for Christ!
To the second question, the answer is "no" because election and non-election speak not to what a person can do (by basic ability), but to what they will do. The elect are elected not simply to arrive someday in heaven, but to be called, regenerated, and converted here. They will live in a new heaven and a new earth because they were made new in this world by the pure grace of God.
On that note, I will add a huge "AMEN" and agreement to these comments from Pamela:
"Christ’s work on the cross is complete. Our proclivity to continue sinning does not affect the sufficiency of his completed work."
I hope this is helpful in providing a clear answer to your inquiries. Have a blessed Lord's day!
Elect are Jews, non-elect are Gentiles.
ReplyDeleteRomans 9-11,
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
BLIND Jews:
Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8,
SEEING Gentiles:
Romans 15:21
The only ones needing regeneration are Jews (John 9:39-41) BECAUSE they are blind. YOU are not blind, even though you claimed to have been.
The Bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews, for Jews...very little of the whole bible is for the Gentiles.
The Jews, as well as the Pharaoh, are used as props to tell a story. (Romans 9). MERCY!
Moses = Jesus
Pharoah = Satan (DEMONS/TASK MASTERS)
Egypt = Sin/Hell(TORTURE)
Canaan = Heaven
Jews(Hebrews) = BONDAGE
Wandering Desert = CHRISTIAN WALK
Most stories in Genesis is JUST LIKE THIS...SPIRITUAL STORIES. And this is why Jews are blind. So that...they can do things like, oh, I don't know, let's say...crucify Jesus, maybe? If Jesus saved all the Jews, as he OPENED THE HEART of Lydia...all future prophesies would be NULL AND VOID. And we can't have that happen, can we?
Calvinists take what was meant for Jews only, and apply it to ALL MANKIND, when that is not the case.
Gentiles come to Jesus by FAITH (believing in the BAD NEWS, and the GOOD NEWS). Jews can't do that. They have the LAW OF MOSES, AKA WORKS. We don't.
Ed, where do I start? We are on extreme opposite ends of so many theological issues, all I can really say at this time is thank you for the comment.
DeleteThank you for the thank you. I gave you five Bible verses. Five. I'd suggest studying those 5, and see Canaan as HEAVEN, because it's...the PROMISED LAND. See Joseph as Jesus. And his brothers as THE COLLECTIVE JEWS, or as some might say, "corporate", whatever that means. In any case, you should eventually find out that there is a difference between Jew and Gentile...NOT in Christ. You will see a pattern. Was Jonah about a bad man that didn't want to go to Nineveh? Or was there another STORY behind the story? POTTTER/CLAY...3 days, 3 Nights. Jonah chapter 2 is all about Jesus, not Jonah. But told by the actions of Jonah. You guys talk way too much about "sin and salvation". That sounds like a dumb statement, huh?
DeleteDebunk Original Sin! Your whole theology is dependent on Original Sin.
See Acts 17:30 for an example. What do we have here? Gentile Idol worshipers!
Oh, but let's get back to the beginning of all this...
Genesis 15:6 vs. Deuteronomy 6:25.
There is a dispensation thing going on here. Faith, under Abraham, WORKS under the Jews. BUT NOW...
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
So when God saved a REMNANT of Jews, we have the BLIND JEWS from Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8, who had their sight healed under John 9:39-41...and please note what it states about SIN in that same reference...for the Jews, that is. So the REMNANT transitioned from being God followers under the law of Moses, to being God followers under the law of Christ...Romans 11:5-6 (from WORKS to GRACE). And the law was a SETUP to fail. Romans 5:20.
Yes, we are definitely on the extreme opposite ends of many things.
WHY do you believe that David had sin in the womb?
Ed Chapman
If I understand you correctly, you believe (or reformed theology teaches) that the non-elect have been judicially hardened before they were ever conceived -- even before they ever existed. Is that accurate?
ReplyDeleteYou answered the second pair of questions as though they were one question, so just to clarify: you answered "no" to the question of whether the non-elect person would still be condemned even if he spent his whole life worshiping Jesus. But earlier you said there was a sense in which it was impossible for a non-elect person to trust in Christ. Can you explain your answer a little more? The way I read it right now is that you can say "no, he would not be condemned" because you believe it (a non-elect person faithfully serving Jesus) could never happen. And if course, vice versa for the elect person who rejected Christ. Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello anonymous, thank you for your questions. I did not mention judicial hardening, and I guess to answer your first question we would need to define the term "judicially hardened." To my best recollection, I have never found this terminology in any Calvinist's description of human beings at pre-conception (although, admittedly, there are plenty of Calvinist authors and writings I have not read, so it is possible that some of them use this wording). So, to my knowledge that statement is not accurate. I would personally understand judicial hardening as something which occurs after a person repeatedly rejects God's call to repent.
DeleteOn the second pair of questions, my answer would be "no" to both, since both describe a condition that would never occur because it violates the definitions of the words. This is akin to asking, "If liquid water was dry, could someone still drown in it?" By definition, liquid water will never be dry, so no one will ever drown in "dry" water.
I can't believe that you don't understand her first question, since it is CENTRAL to Calvinism. According to the Calvinism that we know and can't stand, God created people...correct? He created some for GLORY and the REST for Destruction. Or, to put it in straight 21st Century English, God created a lot of people to GO TO HELL...since he's all sovereign and sh...I mean, stuff. Or, in short, NO ONE HAS FREE WILL TO BE SAVED. It's all a pick and choose by God only. Come on man, you can't tell me that you don't know what anonymous was getting at.
DeleteEd Chapman
You said, "Both elect and non-elect persons have a heart/mind/soul which has the basic ability to trust in any person or concept that is encountered. Each of us has this basic capacity and ability to trust or not trust as we move through life."
DeleteYou also said, "With that said, we must also recognize a sense in which it is impossible for a non-elect person (or an unregenerated elect person) to trust in Christ."
Impossible BECAUSE they are non-elect, correct? Since God did the electing (rather, the non-electing), I would think that for all intents and purposes it is essentially the same as being judicially hardened... except that for the non-elect, the judicial hardening came before the sin.
From my understanding of both theologies, sin is, ultimately, largely irrelevant. In reformed theology the non-elect would not go to heaven even if they could somehow avoid ever sinning, BECAUSE they are not elect. In traditional theology, the condemned would be condemned, not because they sin, but because they failed to put their faith in Christ for their salvation. Would you say that is an accurate summary of the difference between the two doctrines?
BTW, this is Pamela -- I just didn't create an account.
Hello Pamela, and thank you for your reply.
DeleteI would strenuously disagree with everything stated in your third paragraph above. The reason unregenerate persons (whether elect or non-elect) cannot, in a certain sense, trust in Christ is because they are, by their own choice and in consequence of Adam's sin, bent toward evil. This is akin to a pilot who, though capable of flying, cannot fly the plane simple because nothing within him wants to fly it. Indeed, he is afraid of flying. So, while he might sit in the plane, inspect the plane, read about the plane, etc., he cannot fly it because his settled disposition is to despise flying. Only when once comes along to change his mind about flying and calm his fears will he choose to fly the plane. This is the same as mankind in the fallen state. We self-limit our range of potential choices, making it impossible for us to do choose what we ought to do (what God commands and graciously calls us to do).
With regard to the fourth paragraph, I would not agree that this is an accurate summary of two doctrines. I will not try to speak for traditionalism/provisionism (or even Arminianism) on this point. But for Calvinists, generally, the reason for condemnation is sin (defined as the breaking of God's holy law). Sin results in judgment and death. The condemnation of the wicked is a just response on the part of God and does not precede the actual occurrence of the wickedness.
Was it all foreordained? Yes, we do find that concept in the Bible and draw comfort from it. But we leave room for mystery in the way God foreordains (since it occurs outside of our realm of existence and He does not give us the details) and we also recognize mystery between His foreordination and the real human choices that occur. We understand that God is by necessity the first cause and the ultimate cause of everything, but we also recognize there are second causes, and we humbly admit we do not understand all the interrelations and interactions that occur between the first and second causes, whether in time or eternity. We can only speak with clarity where Scripture has given us clarity, and with regard to foreordination we have only limited insight from the Word.
There is no doubt that some Calvinists have speculated far beyond what we can actually know about these matters from Scripture, and in some cases this has caused harm. Calvinists at their best and wisest moments have followed Paul's admonition: "Do not go beyond what is written." This is not to say we should never theorize or attempt to explain further by drawing inferences, but we must hold all of our theories loosely since they are just our ideas and not God's Word.
I hope this helps.
Thank you for your response. I have nowhere near the theological training that both you and Matt "Strider" have, so I will not try to re-litigate what the two of you covered in depth years ago. I will simply say that I fall firmly in Matt's camp on this, with a rejection of the idea that "second causes" can in any way trump first causes. God gave us logic, so to say that we should not follow the logical implications to where they lead is to deny that we are image-bearers of God. He gave us logic and reason SO THAT we could know Him and have a relationship with Him, and so that we could, in some measure, understand Him. It might have been Matt who said God must be RECOGNIZABLY good, and I cannot recognize as good the God that you describe. I have heard it said in reformed theology that God elected some to salvation and some to condemnation "for His own good glory and pleasure", but the Bible describes a God whose glory is made manifest in His sacrifice on the cross in the person of Jesus, to provide a way for ALL of His progeny to be saved... and that He takes pleasure in the salvation of those who put their faith in Him. I do appreciate your time in engaging with me.
DeleteThe only consequence of Adam's sin is natural death of the body. Not a natural separation from God. This original sin concept is the worst dogma of them all.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time that Romans 5:13 and 4:15 was read? The Law didn't come out until Moses. Those who drowned in the Noah's flood...innocent. same with the Pharoah. Mercy.
ReplyDeleteRomans 9 -11 explains. So did Peter about Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison, aka Abraham's Bosom. Same with Cain. The tree of knowledge only affected those who ate of that tree. Abraham slept with sister Sarah. Incest. A sin under the law. Lot's daughters slept with Lot. A sin under the law. God gave Bro Abe and Sis Sarah an inbred Promised seed, and they remained married.
Were they charged with sin? No. Why? Romans 5:13, 4:15.
So much for Original sin!
So tell me about Adam's sin again!
Ed, I think unfortunately your comments illustrate how far we can go off the rails when we leave historically orthodox Christian beliefs behind. Using principles of sound Biblical interpretation, we can see that Paul's point is exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.
DeleteThose who perished in the flood were under the wrath of God because they were in Adam, following naturally in his footsteps of unbelief and rebellion, even though there were no specific law-commands to be broken at that time. The reality that they were under sin, in Adam, led to the reality that the just wrath of God fell upon them.
Did those pre-flood earth-dwellers labor by the sweat of their brow among thorns and thistles? Or were they given a garden? Did their women experience pain in childbirth? Or were they taken back to a painless, pre-fall birthing experience? You see, the curse fell not only upon Adam and Eve, but upon all their offspring as well. Why? Because Adam represents all of us as our federal head. It is because Adam's representative federal headship can curse us that Christ's representative federal headship can redeem us. Otherwise, every one of us would be our own personal Adam, and we would be left to save ourselves.
The law makes sin "concrete," but since Adam's fall sin has been in us (and flowed out of us) regardless of whether it was ever "accounted" through the application of a law-command. That's why we have to die, even if we never break a specific command. This is Paul's point in Romans.
Sorry but what your explained here is not what the doctrine of Original Sin even is. Apparently you still haven't applied Romans 5:13 and 4:15 to your dogma.
DeleteRomans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Sin...SIN is not imputed. Isn't that what this is all about? Sin? Who said anything about pain in child bearing?
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
No transgression.
Deu 1:39
39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Knowledge of sin is what imputes sin.
Hence the name of the Tree. No Knowledge, no sin imputed.
Gotta love cults who talk about SOUND doctrines, when their stuff makes no SOUND sense.
Ed Chapman
Acts 17:30
Delete30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
1 John 3:9
Delete9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God
Please note the word "cannot", as well as "doth not".
You can't break a law that does not exist. We are not under the law. The law is dead to us...or, we are dead to the law.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
And we aren't just discussing the parchment commandments. It includes the FINGER OF GOD commandments as well.
2 Corinthians 3:3
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Romans 13:8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
Romans 13:10
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
James 2:8
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well
Genesis 2:17 (SPIRITUAL DEATH):
DeleteRomans 7:7-9
7 ...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 ...For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Without knowledge of sin, sin was dead, Paul was alive.
As soon as he knew what sin was, sin was alive, Paul died.
Sound familiar? Adam/Eve, Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
The law of Moses is our Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
1 John 3:4
...sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
...the law is the knowledge of sin.
Did you ever notice, the Young Earthers are FIRM that a creation day is 24 hours, and that you can't deviate from that, but when it comes to Genesis 2:17, all of a sudden, BOOM, a day is as a thousand years? LOL.
The mistake:
Original Sin folks equate Genesis 2:17 to Romans 5, when that's not even what Genesis 2:17 is about.
The correction:
Genesis 2:17 is related to Romans 7:7-9. Spiritual death, not natural death.
1 Cor 15:42-46...Adam was gonna die a natural death no matter what he did, or didn't do.
The only means by which he COULD HAVE HAD eternal life, would have been the eating of the TREE OF LIFE, and he failed to do that.
He even could have OBTAINED eternal life in a fallen state, as well. But God blocked access to that tree.
Original Sin is a false doctrine. The Doctrines of Grace falls flat, as well, because Irresistible/Prevenient Grace is dependent on Original Sin.
Babies who die do not go to hell, not due to "mercy and grace", but because they were never separated from God in the first place. They are not born dead. They are innocent.
But you think that David told you that he had sin in the womb.
You need to revisit that.
The whole issue behind that is RUTH, a Moabite, who married a Jew, Boaz. David's father, Jesse, questioned his Jewishness. And that is where the story begins. The following is the story:
https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm
Ed Chapman
The last comment was from me, chapmaned24. I forgot to change it from Anonymous.
DeleteStupid question:
ReplyDeleteWhat's up with all the "political" wording, i.e. representative federal headship? Federal? What happened to STATE, COUNTY and CITY? Who comes up with this political jargin, anyway? I always wondered that with the word "corporate", as well. Sound's like a political business. Especially since it's all about RIGGED "ELECT-IONS"
I'm sure that you are aware that I question the "orthodox" views of Christianity. I know, I know...that's a HUGE NO-NO, isn't it? Who am I to question the CATHOLICS! LOL. After all, you defected Catholicism...right? Do you really believe the CHURCH FATHERS that a priest has the authority to forgive your sins? Hey, that's SOMEONE'S "ORTHODOX", is it not?
Ed, the term "federal" in this context comes from the Latin word, "foedus," which means a covenant or alliance.
DeleteLet's look at Romans 5:12-21 in its full context.
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In v. 12, note that "all sinned" when Adam sinned.
In v. 13, although we may not be able to specify exactly how pre-law people sinned, we know from verses 12 and 14 that they all sinned, even if they were not transgressing a specific command from God.
In v. 14, their sinning was not the same as Adam's sin, which was a transgression against a specific command (not to eat from that one specific tree). But they were sinning.
In v. 15, we see that Adam's sin brought a deserved sentence of death to himself and all of his offspring, while Christ's obedient sacrifice brought an undeserved GIFT of life to all of His "offspring" (i.e., those who believe in Him for eternal life).
In v. 16, we have just judgment and condemnation for everyone in Adam's line, and we have justification as a free and gracious gift for everyone in Christ's line.
In v. 17, we have a clear statement that Adam is "one man" whose sin results in condemnation and death for his line, while Christ is "one man" whose obedience results in life for his line. In each case, the "one" represents the "many."
In v. 18, Paul takes it further to make his meaning clear: one man's single act of sin brought death to all who are under him; one man's obedient act brought life to all who are under him. That's federal headship. We are connected to a head (Adam or Christ) in a covenantal way. A covenant is made with each head and with all who are under their headship.
In v. 19, Paul reiterates the results of belonging to one or the other of these: Adam or Christ.
In v. 20, we see the role of the law: not to save sinners, but show them through their trespasses that they are sinners in need of God's grace and salvation. And no amount of sin--under the law or apart from it--can quench the power of grace.
In v. 21, we see that "sin reigned in death," and this was the case for all of Adam's line. But that kind of representation opens the way for us to be justified in Christ and find grace, true righteousness, and eternal life in Him.
According to Paul's argument here, the reason we benefit from Christ's sacrifice is because we were condemned under the power of Adam's first (original) sin. Adam acted on our behalf to bring death and condemnation; Christ acted on our behalf to bring eternal life and the reign of grace.
Without all that gobbly-gook (forgive my lingo), let's boil it down to brass tax...(federal tax, that is...lol).
DeleteThe only reason that we die, is because Adam FAILED to eat of the Tree of Life. And when he ate of that other tree, God forbade eating of the Tree of Life. 1 Cor 15:42-46 proves that Adam was going to die a natural death regardless of what he did, or didn't do.
So, the fact that he sinned was irrelevant to the NATURAL order of things.
But because he sinned, God forbade the eating of the TREE OF LIFE, which would have PREVENTED death, even in a fallen state (separation from God).
Genesis 3:22, 24
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
As you can read, Adam COULD HAVE had eternal life, in a fallen state, had God not blocked access to the Tree of Life. So that tree HAD POWER, before the fall, and after the fall.
Who ever INVENTED the idea that Adam got NOURISHMENT from the Tree of Life is completely wrong. 1 Cor 15:42-46 proves that Adam was made of DIRT, and the NATURAL course of things from that alone, that Adam was going to die a natural death regardless of anything.
Therefore, Genesis 2:17 cannot be related to Romans 5 at all.
Look at the book of Revelation. Did you ever happen to notice that the phrase "this is the 2nd death" is mentioned twice? The unrighteous, at final judgment, has 2 deaths.
1. Natural: Death of the Body
2. Spiritual: SEPARATION FROM GOD.
Thank you for your reply, Ed-nonymous.
DeleteWe really have no Biblical warrant for the suggestion you are making regarding the tree of life. We do not have a clear Biblical explanation of that tree's role, while we do have definitive statements like this one regarding the fact that death results only from sin:
Rom 5:12 - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"
Death came into the world through sin, not through a failure to eat from the tree of life.
I Cor. 15:42-46 does not say the originally created body would have died, it shows that the resurrection body is far more glorious than the fallen and corrupted one we are in now.
Ed-nonymous...good one! I stand by what I said, completely, even if you disregard it by saying that we have no biblical warrant for the suggestion...uhm, I beg differ, BIG TIME. I just got done explaining it all, and I stand by that. BIG TIME.
Deleteand since you REFUTE 1 Cor 15:42-46, I'm goint to BREAK IT DOWN for you, since you refuse to. If you were to make 2 columns, it would look like this:
NATURAL BODY:
NOTE: Natural body was made of DIRT from the earth. Natural bodies DIE.
1 Corinthians 15:
A Natural Body is PLANTED in:
42 CORRUPTION (DIES)
Note: That word is NOT about morality or sin, but about the DECAYING dying body.
Example:
Acts 2:31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
G5356
φθορά phthorá, fthor-ah'; from G5351; decay, i.e. ruin (spontaneous or inflicted, literally or figuratively)
Moving on
43 Dishonor, Weakness
44 NATURAL BODY
____________________________________
SPIRITUAL BODY
A spiritual body is raised in:
42 Incorruption (DOES NOT DIE)
43 Glory, Power
44 Spiritual Body
And the SLAM DUNK is verse 36, which came first, the CHICKEN OR THE EGG?
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The NATURAL DYING DISHONORABLE WEAK body came FIRST, not the spiritual body.
Original sin is BASED ON Adam having a SPIRITUAL BODY FIRST, who LOST THAT body.
But that's not true.
Catholic dogma states that I must be anathema for even saying what I said.
So, my name is NOT Ed-nonymous, but Anathema. My middle name is DANGER.
And this is why I stand by what I said.
Adam never ate of the Tree of Life, and THEREFORE, we die. And yes, since God blocked access to that tree, as per Genesis 3:22, 24, BECAUSE HE SINNED, therefore, we die.
But you cannot equate Genesis 2:17 to Romans 5, because they are UNRELATED.
Genesis 2:17 is SPIRITUAL DEATH, not Natural Death, and therefore, Romans 5 is irrelevant to Genesis 2:17.
It is all regarding the words, "THAT DAY", which is NOT "a day is as a thousand years".
Genesis 2:17 is spiritual death, which is related to ROMANS 7:7-9.
No one is BORN SPIRITUALLY DEAD. We die a spiritual death. Life comes before death.
You cannot convince me of any other alternative than the one that I provided. Original Sin Doctrine is FALSE, as is Irresistible and Prevenient Grace.
I've always noticed that reformers minimize the Tree of Life in the discussion of Original Sin.
DeleteYou had said:
"We do not have a clear Biblical explanation of that tree's role"
Yes, you do. I'm perplexed as to why so many reformers say that.
Isn't the TITLE of the tree sufficient? You had two trees.
1. OF LIFE
2. OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
If not, God does explain it in Genesis 3:22, to wit:
1. TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
Genesis 3:22 FIRST HALF
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
2. TREE OF LIFE
Genesis 3:22 SECOND HALF
...and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
That proves that he could have gotten eternal life by eating of the tree of life, EVEN IN A FALLEN STATE (separated from God).
So yes, Adam sinned by disobeying God to not eat of THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
Now, why would God not want Adam to eat of THAT tree? After all, everything that God created was GOOD, was it not? Apparently not.
Have you ever told your children to NOT PLAY WITH MATCHES? If so, why? Because you don't want them to get hurt, right? Or die?
What took place when Adam and Eve played with matches here? THEY GOT KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Before that, they had no clue what was evil, and what was good. They were care free, and innocent. They didn't even know that they were naked. God had to ask them, "WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?"
Essentially, God told them that for as long as they stay IGNORANT, that they were INNOCENT.
But Satan comes along and says, "STOP BEING SO IGNORANT AND GET EDUCATED".
Does that sound familiar from the LEFT ATHEISTS?
And so they got the college education, and they are STILL paying for their student loans, thousands of years after their death. But they know a lot about good and evil.
But you guys only concentrate on the "disobeying God to not play with matches", instead of the CONSEQUENCES of playing with matches. The consequences is KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, where before they ate, they had no knowledge of sin.
It's as if your children would as, "WHY do you not want me to play with matches?", and your answer is, "BECAUSE I SAID SO!".
But the truth would really be, because you don't want them to DIE, or GET HURT, not because you said so.
Many seem to think of the tree of life as nothing more than just a METAPHOR. Well, if it was, why would God have to block access to a metaphor in Genesis 3:22, 24?