ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[elected4ever]

Lucifer was not created as Satan, but became Satan.

Adam was not created a sinner, but became a sinner through disobedience.

We are not born sinners, but become sinners as we sin. We are born with affects from the Fall, but not with the guilt of Adam's choices that we had nothing to do with. We are responsible for our own following in Adam's footsteps and cannot blame Adam, our parents, or Satan. We all like sheep have gone astray by our own selfish rebellion.

And being born dead to god as a result of Adam's deed doesn't help much does it. If we die while in this death then we will go straight to hell regardless of anything else we do. We must receive life to be free of this death.

 

[elected4ever]

This?



That didn't entirely answer the question, but close enough, I guess, if you don't want to by clearer.

Nevertheless, the obvious contradiction remains:

1) One must be a sinner to sin (E4E's assumption)
2) Adam was not a sinner
3) Therefore, Adam couldn't sin.

However, Adam did. Therefore, the assumption must be false.

Muz

You are mixing apples and oranges. Adam was created by God with the ability to reproduce after his kind. God did not create your physical person. You are the creation of your father and mother. You cannot blame God just because you are ugly

 

[godrulz]

And being born dead to god as a result of Adam's deed doesn't help much does it. If we die while in this death then we will go straight to hell regardless of anything else we do. We must receive life to be free of this death.

We all universally sin and are in need of a sinless Savior. It is somewhat academic (practically) whether we are born sinners or become sinners. We need the life of Christ as you point out.

I would still distinguish physical and moral depravity. We are born with physical depravity and a propensity to sin, but moral depravity is formed over time as we chose to sin and live in a state of separation (death) relationally from God.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

We all universally sin and are in need of a sinless Savior. It is somewhat academic (practically) whether we are born sinners or become sinners. We need the life of Christ as you point out.

I would still distinguish physical and moral depravity. We are born with physical depravity and a propensity to sin, but moral depravity is formed over time as we chose to sin and live in a state of separation (death) relationally from God.

Very well said! :up:

 

[themuzicman]

You are mixing apples and oranges. Adam was created by God with the ability to reproduce after his kind. God did not create your physical person. You are the creation of your father and mother. You cannot blame God just because you are ugly

What!??!

You said that the only way one can sin is to be a sinner. That being the case, one would have to conclude that Adam was created as a sinner, because he did sin.

Or are you retracting your statement?

Muz

 

[godrulz]

If Adam was created as a sinner, then a holy God would be responsible for sin and evil, which He is not.

God's creation was perfect. Having freedom to obey or disobey is not sinful, but a wrong use of this freedom is. It was not necessary or certain that Adam would Fall. There was no excuse given His perfect conditions. It grieved God to the core when He did Fall necessitating the implementation of the plan of redemption (Gen. 3 vs 'very good' creation of Gen. 1).

 

[elected4ever]

What!??!

You said that the only way one can sin is to be a sinner. That being the case, one would have to conclude that Adam was created as a sinner, because he did sin.

Or are you retracting your statement?

Muz

Are you implying that God created sin?

 

[Philetus]

Lucifer was not created as Satan, but became Satan.

Adam was not created a sinner, but became a sinner through disobedience.

We are not born sinners, but become sinners as we sin. We are born with affects from the Fall, but not with the guilt of Adam's choices that we had nothing to do with. We are responsible for our own following in Adam's footsteps and cannot blame Adam, our parents, or Satan. We all like sheep have gone astray by our own selfish rebellion.

:up:
... or God!

 

[themuzicman]

Are you implying that God created sin?

I'm proving that your statement that you must be a sinner to sin is false.

I say that you don't need to be a sinner to sin.

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

Very well said! :up:

It is plane to see that nether you nor godrulz understands the doctrine of original sin. If you did then a major change would occur to your understanding of who a child of God is. As it is is you both are carnal Christians beating against the wind.

 

[godrulz]

:up:
... or God!

Thx. Most true...I will edit.

 

[elected4ever]

I'm proving that your statement that you must be a sinner to sin is false.

I say that you don't need to be a sinner to sin.

Muz

You have proved nothing but you total ignorance on the matter.

 

[godrulz]

It is plane to see that nether you nor godrulz understands the doctrine of original sin. If you did then a major change would occur to your understanding of who a child of God is. As it is is you both are carnal Christians beating against the wind.

I do understand the Augustinian/Catholic/Reformed doctrine of 'original sin' developed by Augustine to explain why he struggled with his carnality, even as a believer. Because I understand it, I am able to reject it as extra/contrabiblical.

Plain, not airplane. I am in a minority here as rejecting 'original sin'.

Regardless of either view of sin (I believe it is volitional and moral, not a substance and metaphysical...easy to demonstrate from Scripture), we still need a sinless Savior to save us and we still need the sanctifying work of the Spirit to set us apart and make us like Jesus in character. There are many 'carnal' Christians that believe in original sin and many non-carnal Christians who reject 'original sin'.

Knight has a big stick as owner. I would not diss him.

 

[godrulz]

You have proved nothing but you total ignorance on the matter.

The fact that Lucifer and innocent Adam sinned from this position without having a causative sin nature (free will and its abuse is sufficient cause) undermines your dogmatic argument and supports Muz's basic understanding. A baby is similar to them in the womb. Natures are formed with choices. Nurture and genetics (mother nature) may be an evolutionary, deterministic explanation, but it is not a biblical one.

 

[themuzicman]

You have proved nothing but you total ignorance on the matter.

ROFL!

Ad hominem attack is the most begrudging (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

I guess you just can't handle a simple and obvious contradiction in your logic.

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

I do understand the Augustinian/Catholic/Reformed doctrine of 'original sin' developed by Augustine to explain why he struggled with his carnality, even as a believer. Because I understand it, I am able to reject it as extra/contrabiblical.

Plain, not airplane. I am in a minority here as rejecting 'original sin'.

Regardless of either view of sin (I believe it is volitional and moral, not a substance and metaphysical...easy to demonstrate from Scripture), we still need a sinless Savior to save us and we still need the sanctifying work of the Spirit to set us apart and make us like Jesus in character. There are many 'carnal' Christians that believe in original sin and many non-carnal Christians who reject 'original sin'.

Sin is a toothless tiger.Knight has a big stick as owner. I would not diss him.

I do not know what Augustine believed about it. Salvation is life from the dead. What death is that? It is the death of Adam to God that we are all born under. We are born dead to God and must receive His life. This is about our position as a result of salvation. Not whether we are born having committed a sin. Being dead to God prevents us from knowing or doing the will of God. Sin has its power in death. Destroy death and sin loses its power. In the resurrection of Christ Jesus he became victorious over death, hell and the grave. Sin has become a toothless tiger. It only has power in the imagination of ignorant people who refuse to believe in the promises of God.

 

[themuzicman]

Q:How do you know when a Calvinist is telling you something wrong about Soteriology?
A: His lips are moving....

Hehe...

 

[elected4ever]

Q:How do you know when a Calvinist is telling you something wrong about Soteriology?
A: His lips are moving....

Hehe...

Calvinism is nothing to me, OV and dispensationalism is nothing to me but they are to you. Are you not carnal in you understanding and as a child needing the milk of the word because you cannot receive the meat?

 

[themuzicman]

Calvinism is nothing to me, OV and dispensationalism is nothing to me but they are to you. Are you not carnal in you understanding and as a child needing the milk of the word because you cannot receive the meat?

ROFL! Keep digging, e4e...

(FYI, I'm not a dispy.)

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

No I would not, for God would not be sovereign, but a contingent being, and we would not be assured that His will would be realized. In effect, what the Scriptures have clearly stated about God's sovereignty and omniscience would be untrue. Who could trust this kind of God?

So, if God did not have exhaustive foreknowledge, the Bible would still say He does? That's a bit stupid, don't ya think?

And why not trust a contingent being? I mean, if God is contingent, and still able to perform His will, in spite of the contingencies, then isn't He greater than if He has to have exhaustive foreknowledge, in order for His will to be assured?