ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Nang]

You allow for Adam exercising choice independent of that which was predetermined by God?

No, Adam was allowed to freely exercise (secondary) moral choices according to God's predetermined moral standards (Law).

Adam was given the moral agency to freely (independently)live so, but Adam failed to submit to obedience . . causing the loss of this God-given capacity to live in harmony with God. Instead, the moral agency (will) of man corrupted, died, and came into bondage to death, sin, and the devil.

This free agency of Adam you speak of appears to be freewill if so.

Adam's moral agency (will) was immediately subjected to Divine Law and commands, and Adam was held accountable and responsible to freely subjugate his actions to the word and will of God.

IOW's the only real freedom of human will, can only be found in perfect obedience to God's moral standards (Law).

The moral agency of man is secondary and was/is never autonomous from the sovereign word and will of God.

And the biblical history and revelation has proven to all men, that only the Son of Man, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, exhibited a human free will completely obedient to the word and will of God . . and He did so on the behalf of His poor creatures, who fail to live according to the glory of God.

 

[intojoy]

You allow for Adam exercising choice independent of that which was predetermined by God? This free agency of Adam you speak of appears to be freewill if so.

Adam and the angels were created holy and sinless with the ability to make a choice contrary to their natures.

the angels that did not choose to rebel were instantly confirmed in righteousness and now can never sin.

The angels who sinned were confirmed in unholiness and no salvation was offered to them.

Adam was given the promise of being redeemed. When Cain was born the original Hebrew read "I have gotten a man, Jehovah." Eve's theology was correct in that her seed would produce the God Man to destroy Satan but her declaration of Cain wasn't correct.

When I became born again my spirit which was like a corpse within my body was regenerated and I now identify myself with my newborn human spirit which does not sin and can not sin. I await the glorification of my body when all that I struggle with will be wiped away - praise God. Although there are failures in my walk in Christ I attribute those as coming from within my members of whom I no longer identify as being me. All things have passed away and I am passed from death to life. This is how our God and Father views me now. Yeshua said even the faith of a mustard seed can move a mountain and without faith it is impossible to please God. My faith is in His word which He shall keep and I am forever an object of God's omnipotent love.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nang]

Adam and the angels were created holy and sinless with the ability to make a choice contrary to their natures.

the angels that did not choose to rebel were instantly confirmed in righteousness and now can never sin.

The angels who sinned were confirmed in unholiness and no salvation was offered to them.

Please cite the Scriptures where you get all this info.

Adam was given the promise of being redeemed.

When? Where?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One cannot analyze salvation by comparing it to the fall.

Adam was put under commands (Law) immediately, making the creature accountable to the Creator. Adam failed in this regard and was declared a guilty man.

Since the fall, the entire human race has only functioned under this sentence of guilt; meaning none can do good (Romans 3:10-19). However, the Law still stands, all men remain accountable, but no man can meet the moral standards of the Law.

Only one Man could and did fulfill all the Law for a people given to Him to redeem and reconcile to God.

Comparing the first choice of Adam, does not give any of us a choice to do good now or to find favor with God. It is too late. We can only throw ourselves upon the mercy of God and beg for His saving grace. (And when a soul does this, it is evidenced that soul is being drawn by the monergistic powers of God, to faith in Jesus Christ. John 6:37-40)

Anyone who murmurs against the above gives evidence they are none of His. John 6:40-58

Please carefully study these revelations given by the Lord Himself.

Exactly. Synergism would have nothing to do with the onset of spiritual death and/or sin. They're not synonymous in any manner.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I made a specific point regarding 1 Corinthians 15:27 - unless you are willing to respond then there's not much point continuing. You seem to be offended that I even dared to raise a query.



Again, you take offence. I'm just asking question and stating what I consider scripture affirms. If you really can't deal with me then I'm not forcing you to continue.



Neither you nor I can claim infallibility. I accept that you know a whole lot more than I do about the Greek language, but the translations we have don't appear to reflect the nuances you claim.



I'm here to debate and discover truth. Don't assume that the giant hump is on my road.



Not.



Let's just stick to debating the issues and forget if I believe or not.

I haven't been debating, so there's your disconnect. I've been attempting to serve you by helping you understand difficulties of the binary-based false dichotomies of election and soteriology. This would explain why you've been contending rather than listening.

You're contending from within the menagerie. There's too much you don't and WON'T understand. It all begins with spiritual death (and what it is, and how it occurred) before even addressing the inevitable sin (the condition) that resulted from it, and how spiritual death contrasts to physical death.

You can't get there from where you are. You've begin with many presuppositions, but are unaware of them. All of this can be reconciled with careful exegesis and valid applied lexicography and grammar instead of concepts, etc.

You even tried to compare Synergism to the Edenic Lapse of creation. So you don't really know what Synergism is while contending for it (and against grammar in scripture).

I'm really not here for debate, but to serve the Body and those who seem to be searching as drawn by the Spirit. Sorry I misunderstood. And now you understand me not responding to your last few appeals for endless debate.

 

[Sonnet]

Saying why have you made me thus?

I believe you have misinterpreted Romans 9. Certainly the words appear, prima facie, to support the Calvinist's position but consider that in verses 30-32 Paul is making it clear to his kinsmen that, contrary to their belief, they would not attain righteousness through works of the law:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

So Paul emphatically disabuses them of this error. He also quashes any notion that being a physical descendent of Abraham entitled one to be regarded as Abraham's offspring; rather, it was only the children of the promise considered so.

So to whom was the promise made?

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

v.7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

So, when we read:

Romans 9:7b
On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

Paul is not pointing to Isaac as the focus of election, but Christ since we know it was Isaac's faith that entitled him to heirdom (Hebrews 11).

So the complainant of v.20 is in this context - an Israelite lamenting the fact that physical descent nor observance of the law guaranteed righteousness.

 

[Sonnet]

I haven't been debating, so there's your disconnect. I've been attempting to serve you by helping you understand difficulties of the binary-based false dichotomies of election and soteriology. This would explain why you've been contending rather than listening.

Only if you possess the truth would this be so.

You're contending from within the menagerie. There's too much you don't and WON'T understand. It all begins with spiritual death (and what it is, and how it occurred) before even addressing the inevitable sin (the condition) that resulted from it, and how spiritual death contrasts to physical death.

You can't get there from where you are. You've begin with many presuppositions, but are unaware of them. All of this can be reconciled with careful exegesis and valid applied lexicography and grammar instead of concepts, etc.

Mere assertion.

You even tried to compare Synergism to the Edenic Lapse of creation. So you don't really know what Synergism is while contending for it (and against grammar in scripture).

I'm not following your meaning.

I'm really not here for debate,

As you wish.

but to serve the Body and those who seem to be searching as drawn by the Spirit. Sorry I misunderstood. And now you understand me not responding to your last few appeals for endless debate.

The FACT is is that you appear unable to respond to my point regarding 1 Corinthians 15:27. To suggest that your non-response is because you consider that I am not being drawn is condescending and appears to be a cover.

You did not prove your claim regarding articular / anarthrous 'all' in Romans 5.

Since you affirm you are not here to debate then I need not trouble you further.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Is there any part of man's rebellion against God that has an independence from that which God predetermined to occur?

This is a wrong question from foundational misperception and presupposition. You don't know what tov (good) and ra'a (evil) are, nor what death (thanatos) is (either spiritual or physical).

You're debating in the guise of queries, and it's all falsely framed.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Only if you possess the truth would this be so.

I know. And I do. If you only knew. There's only THE aletheia (truth).

Mere assertion.

I'm not following your meaning.

As you wish.

The FACT is is that you appear unable to respond to my point regarding 1 Corinthians 15:27. To suggest that your non-response is because you consider that I am not being drawn is condescending and appears to be a cover.

You did not prove your claim regarding articular / anarthrous 'all' in Romans 5.

Futile.

Since you affirm you are not here to debate then I need not trouble you further.

Fair enough. Agreed. I pray you find the way, the truth, and the life. Maybe relinquish your tenacious grasp on some things in order to gain it.

My best to you.

 

[Sonnet]

Futile.

Not futile but a fact - you did not substantiate your claim...it's there for all to see.

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...

 

[Sonnet]

This is a wrong question from foundational misperception and presupposition. You don't know what tov (good) and ra'a (evil) are, nor what death (thanatos) is (either spiritual or physical).

You're debating in the guise of queries, and it's all falsely framed.

Ex cathedra?

 

[Sonnet]

I know. And I do. If you only knew. There's only THE aletheia (truth).

And you failed to demonstrate it.

 

[Sonnet]

No, Adam was allowed to freely exercise (secondary) moral choices according to God's predetermined moral standards (Law).

Adam was given the moral agency to freely (independently)live so, but Adam failed to submit to obedience . . causing the loss of this God-given capacity to live in harmony with God. Instead, the moral agency (will) of man corrupted, died, and came into bondage to death, sin, and the devil.





Adam's moral agency (will) was immediately subjected to Divine Law and commands, and Adam was held accountable and responsible to freely subjugate his actions to the word and will of God.

IOW's the only real freedom of human will, can only be found in perfect obedience to God's moral standards (Law).

The moral agency of man is secondary and was/is never autonomous from the sovereign word and will of God.

And the biblical history and revelation has proven to all men, that only the Son of Man, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, exhibited a human free will completely obedient to the word and will of God . . and He did so on the behalf of His poor creatures, who fail to live according to the glory of God.

So you believe that Adam's rebellion was predetermined to occur?

I'm not clear on your definition of 'secondary' moral choices'.

May I ask why you still haven't responded to previous posts? If you aren't willing to do so then there is probably no point us continuing to debate.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I believe you have misinterpreted Romans 9. Certainly the words appear, prima facie, to support the Calvinist's position but consider that in verses 30-32 Paul is making it clear to his kinsmen that, contrary to their belief, they would not attain righteousness through works of the law:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

So Paul emphatically disabuses them of this error. He also quashes any notion that being a physical descendent of Abraham entitled one to be regarded as Abraham's offspring; rather, it was only the children of the promise considered so.

So to whom was the promise made?

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

v.7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

So, when we read:

Romans 9:7b
On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

Paul is not pointing to Isaac as the focus of election, but Christ since we know it was Isaac's faith that entitled him to heirdom (Hebrews 11).

So the complainant of v.20 is in this context - an Israelite lamenting the fact that physical descent nor observance of the law guaranteed righteousness.

You totally miss the point that Isaac was the child of promise.

It had nothing to do with his faith.

 

[Sonnet]

You totally miss the point that Isaac was the child of promise.

It had nothing to do with his faith.

The promise was to Christ. Galatians 3:16.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The promise was to Christ. Galatians 3:16.

Irrelevant to my answer to your post.

You claimed it was about Isaac's faith not me.

 

[Sonnet]

Irrelevant to my answer to your post.

You claimed it was about Isaac's faith not me.

Scripture says it's about faith.

That you think God picks out certain individuals for exclusion is outrageous.

 

[Sonnet]

Irrelevant to my answer to your post.

You claimed it was about Isaac's faith not me.

Christ died for those whom he excluded?

 

[intojoy]

Scripture says it's about faith.

That you think God picks out certain individuals for exclusion is outrageous.

If I go to a park with a lot of homeless people and approaching ten men give $5 each to 5 of them and the other 5 I give nothing, am I being unfair?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Please cite the Scriptures where you get all this info.



When? Where?

Why that would be in the Adamic covenant Thang


Sent from my iPhone using TOL