Was the fall necessary ?

[Clete]

Where is a singular pronoun at 1 Corinthians 12:13? So are you saying that believers were baptized by one Spirit into the Body of Christ as a group?:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

Why do you ask questions you know that answer to?

I've had you on ignore for wmonths not because I think you're a heretic or stupid but because you just don't seem to care to have real discussions. Why would you ask that question? I just got through answering that question in the sentence that you are quoting!

Is it really that hard to follow the discussion?

No! You just can't possibly be that stupid!

So, you tell me how would anyone be able to proceed? After that whole post that I probably spent something close to an hour typing up, you're response is to ask a question that can't possibly move the discussion forward. The best I could do is to repeat myself and maybe use fewer words and increase the font size as though I were talking to a child. If this sort of thing wasn't what landed you on my ignore list in the first place, I'd be tempted to think that you did such things because you knew I would likely not respond to it. It comes off as your way of always getting in the last word or something.


I don't know and really I don't actually care. Regardless of why you do the silly things you do, I've decided to take you off ignore - for now. In fact, I'm taking most of the people on that list off of it. I looked at the list and can't remember who most of them even are and so it's time to reset and see who deserves to remain on the list and who doesn't. If you want to actually discuss these issues then start by giving me something of substance in response to post #83.

Clete

 

[Clete]

If man in adam had never fell into sin and remained innocent flesh and blood, they would not have been fit or qualified to enter the Heavenly Kingdom prepared for the Sheep from the foundation of the World.

We know from scripture that Adam was a Son of God in the beginning Luke 3:38....

Do I hear disagreement in the Calvinist echo chamber?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are babies made in God's image and likeness?

A person's age has nothing to do with it.

According to the scriptures, God from Everlasting had decreed some to be Vessels of Mercy made in His Image and Likeness Rom. 9:23.

And yet others to be vessels of wrath fitted for destruction Rom. 9:22.


Prov. 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


Job 23:13-14

13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. 14 For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.

So babies are not made in God's image, correct?

Did you just omit, that we, meaning all men created are created in His image, for your sake of argument?

All the Elect of God exclusively are made in God's Image.

So some babies are not made in God's image?

That is correct. Humans are born either vessels of mercy Rom. 9:23, or vessels of wrath Rom. 9:22.

Then why did God require life for life punishments for those who, in the process of committing a crime, killed a baby that was in the womb?

Do I hear disagreement in the Calvinist echo chamber?

It's amazing how they ramble on and on and don't even bother to think of the natural consequences of what they say.

 

[Clete]

It's amazing how they ramble on and on and don't even bother to think of the natural consequences of what they say.

I am honestly convinced that it is a real delusion. As in a real mental disorder kind of delusion.

The same sort of thing makes people think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is brilliant when in fact she is perhaps that most delusionally idiotic member that the House of Representatives has ever had.
Michael Savage used to say that liberalism is a mental disorder. He was right! - That is to say that he was literally correct.

I think the same is true of a lot of Calvinists. I used to think it was only a very few of the most rabid Calvinists until I did that "Calvin Said This..." thread. I started that thread expecting several Calvinists to distance themselves from those quotes and was genuinely surprised when none of them did. In fact, not only did they not distance themselves, they openly embarrassed what is obviously heresy if not outright blasphemy to anyone with a mind that still works.

Now, having said that, I should clarify and say that it isn't the sort of mental disorder that gives them any excuse. I'm not saying that they are mentally retarded in some physiological or congenital sense. No, it's far worse than that! It's a mental disorder that they've chosen to have. That's right, Calvinist have CHOSEN, by their own free will, to break their minds.

Understanding the broken nature of their mind is the only way one can have any exchange with them without driving yourself crazy. Otherwise, what you try to do is to make sense of what they are saying. You can't make any sense out of what they are saying because...well...because you're not crazy! You might as well try to make sense out of Scientology or the Heaven's Gate UFO Cult.

Unfortunately, this also means that real debate with them is all but impossible. blasphemy57 doesn't even try to debate anything and hasn't for years, in fact he actively refuses to answer direct questions or to engage in any actual debate whatsoever. He just posts bald assertions as though they were facts and let's them stand without comment or discussion. The only people he responds to at all are sycophants who post things he already agrees with and even then it's just to acknowledge agreement but not to substantively discuss anything. One wonders how he keeps from getting banned, frankly.

Not the blasphy57 is alone in that tactic. It is the way pretty much all Calvinists "debate". Read Bob's Battle Royale debate with Dr. Samuel Lamerson. It doesn't take long for Dr. Lamerson to stop responding to Bob and simply start preaching Calvinism as though that counted as debating. Bob has a video where he debates a Calvinist where something similar happens. It's their only real option. They, like political liberals, cannot stand in the arena of ideas. They cannot win if their ideas are exposed to the bright light of rational thought. (John 1:4-5)

Clete

 

[Nang]

Bob has a video where he debates a Calvinist where something similar happens. It's their only real option. They, like political liberals, cannot stand in the arena of ideas. They cannot win if their ideas are exposed to the bright light of rational thought. (John 1:4-5)
Clete

Calvinists do not hold to humanistic "ideas" but to Sola Scriptura. TRUTH as revealed by the author of TRUTH; God Himself, who is the Word who came in the flesh.

So you are not insulting any particular Calvinist by considering their witness as being craziness; nor do you denigrate Calvinists at large by claiming they are irrational.

All you achieve in your opposition, proves only to be blasphemy against God and the Person of Jesus Christ. Your declarations that biblical truths are irrational is wicked.

What you really reveal is that your mind and heart are dark and unbelieving and full of bad ideas of your own, which is not rational in the least, for you are merely a fallen creature who is guilty of changing TRUTH into a new and false belief system.

Was the fall necessary?

All that God has ordained must necessarily come to pass. Such is the definition of Absolute Sovereignty, which is exactly what you actually oppose before the very face of God.

 

[Cntrysner]

If I had a dime for every time I've read a post saying something like this just before the excuse themselves from the forum, I'd be rich.

Well, I did not excuse myself from the forum. I said "My rant is over for now, hope I get to continue on this forum". Man you got a hard head and to tell the truth, I like it.

If you have/had me on ignore because I'm too harsh to people who blaspheme God with their heretical nonsense, then I'd like very much to stay on that ignore list. I'll wear it as a badge of honor. I'm not the least bit interested in building such people up or in any other way being nice to them.

I said I put you on ignore to test you reaction to it. Sorry, I was just messing with you.

So not even 200 posts into your TOL career and you want to judge people because they don't do things the way you would.

Thanks, on the, I have/had in your mind a career here because I look forward to.. I have.

Aren't we appointed to judge? By judgement we can get to know each other even without crediting. We can't judge as Christ did.

I've been on this forum for decades. Yes, literally decades. I've seen it all and I've heard it all. These people that you're so eager to be nice to either hate the God you worship or are not here to debate anything. You literally haven't any idea what you're even talking about and what's more, no one cares what your opinion about their behavior is anyway.

That is a mouthful and gives me pause with a touch of Freudian perspective. You have more experience than I by far, and I fully accept that fact. Maybe at first you had more compassion. Sorry, I didn't have the opportunity to witness it.
I reviewed how Christ condemned unbelievers and he could because he knew their hearts but I don't have that immediate ability, maybe it will come in time with your assistance. It will take time for me to access individual situations on this forum because maybe compassion wasn't show at first causing them to be more defensive of their doctrine whereby pushing them away, original intent to win them over could be lost.
Even the elect can be deceived and by that I mean they may not have fully understood what they are defending.

Concerning Christ and how we should address (it needs refining!):

1)Meet and greet
2)Beckon with scripture and compassion at great length
3)Condemn with scripture with compassion
4}Condemn with scripture while receiving personal condemnation without reciprocation
5)Condemn with scripture and more prayer
6)Condemn with scripture without reference to it is not allowed
7)God will take over in truth

If you don't like the forum, leave and keep your self righteous judgements to yourself.

I will not take that as a personal attack even though you probably meant it that way..

As you pointed out, you have been here for decades therefore I submit to your judgement . I accept my mistake and ask for your forgiveness and give you the golden triangle. I will catch up in time and will admit that my process of one on one may not be appropriate in an open forum but can still be possible. If I am allowed to catch up to you I could be helpful because I can condemn with the best.

I do judge myself as self righteous believe me and still count you as a friend in Christ and someone that I can enjoy because you point out my flaws.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I've had you on ignore for wmonths not because I think you're a heretic or stupid but because you just don't seem to care to have real discussions.

It is you who cares nothing about a real discussion, not me. You continue to think that just because a singluar pronoun is not used that the reference must be in regard to many people and it couldn't possibly be in reference to a single person.

All you do is run and hide from the points which I raise and pretend that you actually have an answer.

 

[Clete]

Oh boy! Nang couldn't resist coming to b57's rescue any longer! :rotfl:

Calvinists do not hold to humanistic "ideas" but to Sola Scriptura.

Really?

Where in the bible is the doctrine of sola scriptura taught?

How fun is it to blow up a whole Calvinist doctrine in one sentence?!!

TRUTH as revealed by the author of TRUTH; God Himself, who is the Word who came in the flesh.

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Too bad for you that the truth is not self-contradictory. If what you believed were true you wouldn't have to redefine common words to fit your doctrine, you wouldn't believe that an arbitrary god is just, you wouldn't believe that an immutable god became a man and died.

So you are not insulting any particular Calvinist by considering their witness as being craziness; nor do you denigrate Calvinists at large by claiming they are irrational.

It isn't my opinion nor am I making bald claims. I have proven it over and over and over again in a hundred different ways, not the least of which was in this very thread where b57 openly stated that if mankind had not fallen in Adam and was innocent they would not be fit for the kingdom of his non-existent god.

All you achieve in your opposition, proves only to be blasphemy against God and the Person of Jesus Christ.

The difference between you saying it and mine is that I engage the debate and prove my case. You're a fool who couldn't argue herself out of a paper bag if her life depended on it.

Your declarations that biblical truths are irrational is wicked.

And you are an intentional and habitual liar. I called Calvinism and the morons who believe it irrational, not biblical truths. The fact that you can even insinuate that they are the same thing is only more evidence of your delusional state of mind.

What you really reveal is that your mind and heart are dark and unbelieving and full of bad ideas of your own, which is not rational in the least, for you are merely a fallen creature who is guilty of changing TRUTH into a new and false belief system.

Saying it doesn't make is so, Nang!

I've defeated you in every debate you've ever engaged me in to the point of driving you nearly insane with hatred. I crushed your husband to powder on another forum or else you'd not even be here.

Was the fall necessary?

All that God has ordained must necessarily come to pass. Such is the definition of Absolute Sovereignty, which is exactly what you actually oppose before the very face of God.

Again, your redefinition of common English words cause this comment to be a lie and I believe it to be an intentional one.

There is no authority higher than God and if anyone else has authority it is because God has delegated it He and has the absolute right to recall that authority without notice. This is what it actually means to be sovereign. Calvinists have changed the meaning of the word to mean the equivalent of "control freak" which I reject without hesitation. God is just! God is righteous! He is not the author of sin. He flat out did NOT "ordain" (i.e. infallibly predestine) Adam's fall - period. Even suggesting that He did is blasphemy of the highest order, not to mention in direct conflict with scripture and just plain old fashion common sense and reason.

Clete

 

[Cntrysner]

Calvinists do not hold to humanistic "ideas" but to Sola Scriptura. TRUTH as revealed by the author of TRUTH; God Himself, who is the Word who came in the flesh.

So you are not insulting any particular Calvinist by considering their witness as being craziness; nor do you denigrate Calvinists at large by claiming they are irrational.

All you achieve in your opposition, proves only to be blasphemy against God and the Person of Jesus Christ. Your declarations that biblical truths are irrational is wicked.

What you really reveal is that your mind and heart are dark and unbelieving and full of bad ideas of your own, which is not rational in the least, for you are merely a fallen creature who is guilty of changing TRUTH into a new and false belief system.

Was the fall necessary?

All that God has ordained must necessarily come to pass. Such is the definition of Absolute Sovereignty, which is exactly what you actually oppose before the very face of God.

I may have misunderstood you but here's the question...

How does man's, free choice / not will, rob God of his attributes?

 

[Clete]

It is you who cares nothing about a real discussion, not me. You continue to think that just because a singluar pronoun is not used that the reference must be in regard to many people and it couldn't possibly be in reference to a single person.

All you do is run and hide from the points which I raise and pretend that you actually have an answer.

Okay, you want to be ignored then.

Fine by me!

:wave2:

 

[Nang]

I may have misunderstood you but here's the question...

How does man's, free choice / not will, rob God of his attributes?

Adam's willfulness was never free to disobey God (Adam was put under the Law before he sinned Genesis 2:16-17) and his disobedience and breaking of the Law, only robbed him of his original innocence.

The actions of Adam did not change God in the least. Adam only changed Adam . . as well as the human race he represented as federal head.

 

[Clete]

I may have misunderstood you but here's the question...

How does man's, free choice / not will, rob God of his attributes?

Because it makes him soveriegn, Cntrysner!

If she says ANYTHING else, it's a lie. But she won't. That's what she believes.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)

"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will...

...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​

Clete

 

[Cntrysner]

It is you who cares nothing about a real discussion, not me. You continue to think that just because a singluar pronoun is not used that the reference must be in regard to many people and it couldn't possibly be in reference to a single person.

All you do is run and hide from the points which I raise and pretend that you actually have an answer.

I like what I'm seeing here. Way to go at it.

Jerry for the life of me, you are hard to figure out. Are you sure you don't hold yourself under the law in some way, in your heart? Can not figure out the forever time or what was it that you professed? It was something on the basis of promises given before the promise was even fully manifested by God's decree in Christ. It sounds like putting the cart before the horse to me. Tie it all together for me if you will in your on words for just a moment without your repetitive use of selective scripture or quoting your favorite theologian.

 

[Clete]

I will not take that as a personal attack even though you probably meant it that way..

As you pointed out, you have been here for decades therefore I submit to your judgement . I accept my mistake and ask for your forgiveness and give you the golden triangle. I will catch up in time and will admit that my process of one on one may not be appropriate in an open forum but can still be possible. If I am allowed to catch up to you I could be helpful because I can condemn with the best.

I do judge myself as self righteous believe me and still count you as a friend in Christ and someone that I can enjoy because you point out my flaws.

Look man, I don't understand you at all. What you say and what you mean don't seem to line up. I'll figure you out eventually but for now, I just don't get it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because of one single sentence in that last post...

"Aren't we appointed to judge?"

There's not 1% of people who call themselves Christians who would ever utter that sentence. The fact that you understand that much gains you more credit in my eyes than all the Calvinists on this site (and most everyone else) combined.

Let me just assure you that my animosity toward fools like b57 and Nang is not born out of a mere doctrinal disagreement as though it were some sort of knee jerk reaction to some pet peeve of mine. Nang showed up here on this forum (years ago now) for the express purpose of harassing me personally because she couldn't abide the fact that I totally destroyed her husband in a debate on immutability on another forum. She has been openly hostile toward me since before the first day she ever posted here and if you stick around long enough you'll see Nang in her true colors. She's not the least bit interested in a real substantive exchange. She's just like the rest of the Calvinists. She states her doctrine and think's that saying it makes it so.

I should try to find that old debate and send you a link to it if it still exists. It's a terrific example of how sound reason and perfectly reasonable questions just drive Calvinists insane. I couldn't have been more respectful and substantive in that debate and they all HATED me and wanted me banned from the site. I didn't call anyone names, I didn't so much as type in all caps. All I did was make an argument that they had no answer for. But that was enough! I mean, let me tell you, that was more than enough to send them into hysterics.

Clete

 

[Cntrysner]

Adam's willfulness was never free to disobey God (Adam was put under the Law before he sinned Genesis 1:16-17) and his disobedience and breaking of the Law, only robbed him of his original innocence.

The actions of Adam did not change God in the least. Adam only changed Adam . . as well as the human race he represented as federal head.

There you go, I made it clear that I did not want you to respond to Adam's free will. I want you to, for a moment, consider Adam as having free choice. Free choice is different from free will, do you understand that concept?

 

[Cntrysner]

Look man, I don't understand you at all. What you say and what you mean don't seem to line up. I'll figure you out eventually but for now, I just don't get it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because of one single sentence in that last post...

"Aren't we appointed to judge?"

There's not 1% of people who call themselves Christians who would ever utter that sentence. The fact that you understand that much gains you more credit in my eyes than all the Calvinists on this site (and most everyone else) combined.

Let me just assure you that my animosity toward fools like b57 and Nang is not born out of a mere doctrinal disagreement as though it were some sort of knee jerk reaction to some pet peeve of mine. Nang showed up here on this forum (years ago now) for the express purpose of harassing me personally because she couldn't abide the fact that I totally destroyed her husband in a debate on immutability on another forum. She has been openly hostile toward me since before the first day she ever posted here and if you stick around long enough you'll see Nang in her true colors. She's not the least bit interested in a real substantive exchange. She's just like the rest of the Calvinists. She states her doctrine and think's that saying it makes it so.

I should try to find that old debate and send you a link to it if it still exists. It's a terrific example of how sound reason and perfectly reasonable questions just drive Calvinists insane. I couldn't have been more respectful and substantive in that debate and they all HATED me and wanted me banned from the site. I didn't call anyone names, I didn't so much as type in all caps. All I did was make an argument that they had no answer for. But that was enough! I mean, let me tell you, that was more than enough to send them into hysterics.

Clete

I'm on board, thumbs up.

 

[Nang]

There you go, I made it clear that I did not want you to respond to Adam's free will. I want you to, for a moment, consider Adam as having free choice. Free choice is different from free will, do you understand that concept?

Choice is an exercise of the will.

Because Adam was put under lawful commands from God, he was not free to choose to exercise his will contrary to the stated will of God.

Adam's choosing to do so, corrupted his entire being, and all his offspring have inherited his ruination. I Corinthians 15:47-50 Since Adam's original sinful act, all humans possess a will that is corrupt and totally held enslaved by the devil in the bondage of sin/death* and incapable of choosing righteousness. (Romans 7:7-24; 8:7-8,20)

Do you understand that concept?

*See Martin Luther's, "The Bondage of the Will"

 

[Cntrysner]

Choice is an exercise of the will.

Not true, if you choose God's will, how is it your will?

Because Adam was put under lawful commands from God, he was not free to choose to exercise his will contrary to the stated will of God.

Adam by choice, not will, took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Did God make him do it or did Adam choose to?

Adam's choosing to do so, corrupted his entire being, and all his offspring have inherited his ruination. I Corinthians 15:47-50 Since Adam's original sinful act, all humans possess a will that is corrupt and totally held enslaved by the devil in the bondage of sin/death* and incapable of choosing righteousness. (Romans 7:7-24; 8:7-8,20)

Do you understand that concept?

*See Martin Luther's, "The Bondage of the Will"

How do you separate yourself for Adam, it seems you need to?

 

[Cntrysner]

[MENTION=7292]Nang[/MENTION],

You said...Adam's choosing to do so, corrupted his entire being". You agree by your own words that Adam had choice?

 

[Nang]

Not true, if you choose God's will, how is it your will?

It is my choice, which reflects my will, to be obedient to God's will.

Adam by choice, not will, took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Did God make him do it or did Adam choose to?

Adam willfully made the choice to do what God commanded him not to do. Not ignorantly nor blindly, for God warned in the command that when Adam chose to disobey it would result in death. Genesis 2:17

This action of Adam did not demonstrate the exercise of a "free" will, but revealed human LAWLESSNESS which only results in Godly separation and eventual death . . both physical and spiritual death.

How do you separate yourself for Adam, it seems you need to?

The only remedy to escape the choice Adam made, as our federal head, is to place our faith in the virtues and choices of Jesus Christ, who alone, as a Man, and as the federal head of His church, accomplished doing all the will of God and obeying the Laws of God, perfectly on their behalf. I Corinthians 15:45-49,57; Romans 7:24-8:4

We are justified by faith in His righteousness, alone. Romans 6:22-23

John 8:32