[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Because Javier Bardem is awesome? would be my guess ;)[/quote]
I must admit to not knowing who the heck that is.[/quote]
This guy.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:I always just kinda wish they’d eaten of the tree of life first.[/quote]It still would’ve been disobedience though.
[/quote]I don’t remember a prohibition from the tree of life.[/quote]Neither do I Chris. I mean whether before of after eating of the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was still forbidden. Also, I have no good reason to drink and a dozen good ones not too.
Are you saying that you believe in a literal Adam and Eve who had a conversation with a literal serpent and who were the literal first parents of all mankind who were literally created by God Himself? Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam? Are you then further asserting your conviction that the first sin was a literal bite from a piece of literal unnamed fruit (Van Til said pomegranate. He hated pomegranates =] ) I am asking in all sincerity. I do mean that, but your suspicions are accurate. Yes, I am leading you somewhere and because you are a sincere, honest young man you will follow me for which I will give you genuine credit and praise. Especially if you come back with an affirmative answer to all these questions which are actually really only one question.
[quote]eraserhead wrote:
Tiribulus:
Do you think that by appearing to us as a child, God showed that he can ignore knowledge, being both fully human and fully God at the same time? >>>[/quote]I gave up trying to intellectually grasp the “hypostatic union” of the human and divine natures of the incarnate Son of God a long time ago. There is also God the Father and God the Holy Ghost neither of which “ignored” anything. So to your question I would say that it is not possible for God to be less than absolutely omniscient at all “times”. [quote]eraserhead wrote:Is it possible then, even from your theological viewpoint, that God may have allowed for our will to go against His if this was part of his plan of perfection? >>>[/quote]I either completely agree or disagree depending on how this is statement is spun. If it is meant that man defeated God’s genuine desire for a sinless world then I couldn’t possibly disagree more. If it is meant that God so ordered His creation that man’s will was, even in disobedience to His own command still under His all wise and holy governance, then I agree. [quote]eraserhead wrote:Who are we to put limitations on God, and say what he can or cannot do? [/quote]This is what Paul said in his preemptive strike against those who would declare unjust a God who chooses Himself who will and will not have mercy on. “who are you oh man who answers back to God”. I agree. God can foreordain whatsoever comes to pass, including the sin, death, redemption and damnation of every individual person while being absolutely just, merciful and loving.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:I always just kinda wish they’d eaten of the tree of life first.[/quote]It still would’ve been disobedience though.
[/quote]I don’t remember a prohibition from the tree of life.[/quote]Neither do I Chris. I mean whether before of after eating of the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was still forbidden. Also, I have no good reason to drink and a dozen good ones not too. [/quote]
I have several good reasons:
John 2:1-11, Sirach 31:25-30, Isaiah 25:6, Galatians 5:19-21, and Deut. 14:25-26. But, I dare not tempt my brethren.
I will humour you for the moment, and say I do.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< It does not go against my faith, no. Why do you ask?
I will humour you for the moment, and say I do.[/quote]What is this. Won’t do. Will not do at all. What is your conviction. Does the account report real events and real people or not? Get your hand off that ripcord and take a stand will ya.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< It does not go against my faith, no. Why do you ask?
I will humour you for the moment, and say I do.[/quote]What is this. Won’t do. Will not do at all. What is your conviction. Does the account report real events and real people or not? Get your hand off that ripcord and take a stand will ya.
[/quote]
Yes, literally…speak your piece.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< It does not go against my faith, no. Why do you ask?
I will humour you for the moment, and say I do.[/quote]What is this. Won’t do. Will not do at all. What is your conviction. Does the account report real events and real people or not? Get your hand off that ripcord and take a stand will ya.
[/quote]Yes, literally…speak your piece.[/quote]That my dear Christopher brings joy to my heart in ways that you could not possibly imagine. A more sincere word has never been spoken I assure you. I frankly wasn’t sure if you would do some kind of semantic shuffle on me that amounted to no real answer at all. You have my respect. I mean that. Both the content of your belief in this area AND your forthright, fairly quick and uncoaxed declaration of same is praiseworthy.
Ya threw me a curve my friend. I figured it would be at least tonight before I had anything this clear from you on something this foundationally significant and yet so controversial in your church (oh yes it is). I’m gonna need a little time. I promise you publically right here and now that I do not intend to blast you with sarcasm, which I sometimes fall a bit too far into, nor is it my goal to simply prove how wrong you are (or how right I am). I want His truth to reign. All orthodox conservative protestants will agree with the direction this winds up taking. It’s just as much for the people we never hear from here and maybe never will that I write these posts. Not to mention myself. I’ve learned a lot about myself in the last year here. Some not too pleasant.
Whether or not the story of Adam and Eve is literally true or a fable should not diminish the message. The Christians feel that this story represents the fall of mankind from the grace of God. The Jews, however, view it a bit differently.
Don’t worry about Adam and Eve so much if you are a Christian and believe in this:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Whether or not the story of Adam and Eve is literally true or a fable should not diminish the message. The Christians feel that this story represents the fall of mankind from the grace of God. The Jews, however, view it a bit differently.
Don’t worry about Adam and Eve so much if you are a Christian and believe in this:
//bible.cc/john/3-16.htm[/quote]I couldn’t disagree more. One is pointless without the other, but I don’t want to get off track here.
Yeah, I see what you are talking about.
waiting for your reply.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I want His truth to reign.
[/quote]
Okay.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I want His truth to reign.
[/quote]Okay.[/quote]You said:[quote]Yes, there is an Adam and Eve. They are sancto, just like the rest in Heaven. And, their sin is for disobeying G-d’s commandment.[/quote]I agree. What actual and specific commandment did they disobey and by what historical, specific and literal action was this disobedience manifest? I am not condescending to you as it may seem. Let there be no wiggle room here.
EDIT:It was a very simple question Chris. “by what historical, specific and literal action was this disobedience manifest?”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]eraserhead wrote:
Tiribulus:
Do you think that by appearing to us as a child, God showed that he can ignore knowledge, being both fully human and fully God at the same time? >>>[/quote]I gave up trying to intellectually grasp the “hypostatic union” of the human and divine natures of the incarnate Son of God a long time ago. There is also God the Father and God the Holy Ghost neither of which “ignored” anything. So to your question I would say that it is not possible for God to be less than absolutely omniscient at all “times”. [quote]eraserhead wrote:Is it possible then, even from your theological viewpoint, that God may have allowed for our will to go against His if this was part of his plan of perfection? >>>[/quote]I either completely agree or disagree depending on how this is statement is spun. If it is meant that man defeated God’s genuine desire for a sinless world then I couldn’t possibly disagree more. If it is meant that God so ordered His creation that man’s will was, even in disobedience to His own command still under His all wise and holy governance, then I agree. [quote]eraserhead wrote:Who are we to put limitations on God, and say what he can or cannot do? [/quote]This is what Paul said in his preemptive strike against those who would declare unjust a God who chooses Himself who will and will not have mercy on. “who are you oh man who answers back to God”. I agree. God can foreordain whatsoever comes to pass, including the sin, death, redemption and damnation of every individual person while being absolutely just, merciful and loving.
[/quote]
Thank you for the answer.
[quote]eraserhead wrote:Thank you for the answer. [/quote]You’re welcome?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree. What actual and specific commandment did they disobey[/quote]
There was only one commandment at that time and place, don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden or even touch it.
Original sin.
[quote] I am not condescending to you as it may seem. Let there be no wiggle room here.
EDIT:It was a very simple question Chris. “by what historical, specific and literal action was this disobedience manifest?”[/quote]
Dude calm down, it was the Feast of the Annunciation on Friday and I had Men’s Night last night.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Because Javier Bardem is awesome? would be my guess ;)[/quote]
I must admit to not knowing who the heck that is.[/quote]
This guy.[/quote]
great movie
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There was only one commandment at that time and place, don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden or even touch it.[/quote]For now we’ll forget the potential controversy over whether God actually told them not to even touch it for now and whether there were commands implicit in Adams placement in the garden “to work it and keep it” and say I essentially agree again. There was only one prohibition. Do not eat from that tree (and maybe do not even touch it).
Eating the literal fruit of that literal tree brought immediate spiritual death and the onset of eventual physical death and damnation (if left as they were) not only to themselves, but EVERY last human being born from them by normal reproduction. Agree or no? If yes then what’s so serious about eating a piece of fruit? If no please explain. This is what I was getting at. Your original sin answer is not wrong, but wasn’t the point I was looking for. Also I’ll try to be more patient. I should know better. You are not a coward.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:<<< I’ve got a question for you. You say man has free will? So why were Adam and Eve punished for exercising free will and eating the apple? Or did they get free will after they were expelled from the garden?[/quote]I do not say man has free will in the sense that is usually intended by that phrase. I believe man’s fall into sin was foreordained from eternity as was the sacrifice of my glorious precious savior. I mean nothing against you. Truly I don’t but I have addressed this one thousand times despite Pat’s inability to read my posts. Please look around.
[/quote]
Actually no, you have never, ever, ever, ever addressed it even once. Predestination as somebody eloquently put it, is fatalism. It also the same as calling God a big fat jerk, because if he predestined everything thing, then he preordain the evil in the world as well. All of it not some, not half, all of it. Under this scenario, God caused the Third reicht, the holocaust, Stalin’s mass murders, serial rapists, the 5 million people killed in the Congolese civil war, hatred and oppression of every kind. If God preordained all of it, then he orchestrated the fall of man and made it happen.
Under this scenario man is punished just for the amusement of God, because we’re all just puppets in a big puppet show. And there damn sure isn’t any need for a Savior, really what’s the point with out choice?
This is why I whole heartedly reject Calvinism as a completely unequivocal, false heretical doctrine founded by man to serve only himself. This basic tenet makes the whole thing wrong.
Pasting a bunch of scripture and using glorious flowery language will not change that fact.
If predestination is true, religion is a complete waste of time. I don’t think I can be more plain than that.
[quote]eraserhead wrote:
This is what Paul said in his preemptive strike against those who would declare unjust a God who chooses Himself who will and will not have mercy on. “who are you oh man who answers back to God”. I agree. God can foreordain whatsoever comes to pass, including the sin, death, redemption and damnation of every individual person while being absolutely just, merciful and loving.
[/quote]
I call this a non-answer / cop-out…How do we know it’s true? “Well God can do what ever he wants to, can’t he?”.
Well yes, but did he do this? No, he did not. Why? because if he did do this, much of scripture would be a lie.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree. What actual and specific commandment did they disobey[/quote]
There was only one commandment at that time and place, don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden or even touch it.
[/quote]
Genesis 1:28
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Would you consider this a commandment? Just curious.