CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Eastern Orthodox Christianity

[foszoe]

The Fall into Sin.

The Devil was jealous of the blessedness in Paradise of the first people and he thought to deprive them of life in Paradise. For this purpose he entered into the serpent and hid in the branches of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When Eve passed by, the Devil whispered to her to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree. With cunning, he asked Eve, "Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?"

Eve answered the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’"

The Devil lied in order to seduce Eve. He said, "Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

The tempting words of the Devil through the serpent acted upon Eve. She looked at the tree and saw that the tree was pleasant to the eyes, good for food, and gave knowledge; and she wanted to know good and evil. She took of the fruit from the forbidden tree and ate. Then she gave it to her husband, and he ate.

Man gave in to the temptation of the Devil and violated the commandment or will of God — he sinned, fell into sin. This is how man’s fall into sin came about.

This first sin of Adam and Eve, or fall of man into sin, is called ancestral or original sin, for it is specifically this sin which is the beginning of all the other sins in man. The habit, or inclination to sin, passed on to all mankind.

Note: See Genesis, chap. 3:1-6.

 

[foszoe]

The Results of the Fall into Sin and the Promise of a Saviour.

When the first people sinned, they became ashamed and afraid, as it happens with all people when they act foolishly. They immediately realized that they were naked. In order to cover their nakedness, they sewed for themselves clothes from the leaves of the fig tree, in the form of wide belts. Instead of receiving the perfection, equal to God’s, that they had wanted, the opposite occurred: their minds were darkened, their consciences began to torment them, and they lost peace of mind. All this occurred because they knew good and evil, contrary to the will of God, that is, by sin.

Sin changed men so much that when they heard the voice of God in Paradise, in fear and shame they hid among the trees, immediately forgetting that no one can hide from God Who knows everything and is everywhere present. Thus, every sin separates men from God. God, in His compassion, began to call them to repentance, that is, for men to realize their sin, admit it before the Lord, and ask for forgiveness.

The Lord asked, "Adam, where art thou?"

Adam answered, "I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."

God again asked, "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

Adam said, "The woman that Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." So Adam began to pass the blame onto Eve and even to God Himself, Who gave him the woman.

And the Lord said to Eve, "What is this that thou hast done?"

Eve in place of repentance answered, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

Then the Lord proclaimed the results of the sin committed by them.

To Eve God said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband" (that is, you must be in obedience to him).

To Adam He said, [Because thou] "hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee saying, Thou shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake...thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee...in the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread" (that is, you will earn your food by heavy labor), "till thou return unto the ground" (that is, until you die); "for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:16-19).

To the Devil, who concealed himself in the serpent, and was most responsible for man’s sin, He said, "Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou..." and He said that between him and man there would be a struggle, in which men will be the victors, specifically: "The seed of the woman shall crush thy head, and thou shalt strike at his heel" (Cf. Gen 3:15), that is, from woman there will come forth an offspring — the Saviour of the world, Who will be born of a virgin, will conquer the Devil and save man, but for this, He Himself must suffer.

This promise of God concerning the coming of the Saviour was received by men with faith and joy, because it gave them great consolation. In order that men would not forget this promise of God, God taught them to offer sacrifices. For this He commanded them to sacrifice a bull, a lamb or a goat, and to burn them with prayer for the forgiveness of sins and with faith in the future Saviour. Such a sacrifice was a prefiguration of the Saviour, Who had to suffer and pour out His blood for our sins, that is, by His all pure blood to wash our souls from sin and make them clean, holy and once more worthy of Paradise.

Here, in Paradise, the first offering for sin was offered; God made Adam and Eve coats of animal skins and clothed them. However, since people had become sinful, they could no longer live in Paradise, and the Lord expelled them. The Lord placed at the entrance to Paradise an angel-cherubim with a fiery sword in order to guard the way to the tree of life.

The ancestral sin of Adam and Eve, with all its consequences, was passed on through natural birth to all their offspring, to all mankind, to all of us. This is why we are born already sinful and are under all the consequences of sin: sorrow, illness, and death.

Thus, the consequences of the fall into sin turned out to be enormous and heavy. People were deprived of the blessed life of Paradise. The world, darkened by sin, was changed. The earth from that time began to produce a harvest only with much labor; in the fields, instead of good fruits, weeds began to grow; animals began to fear man, to become wild, and seek prey. Illness, suffering, and death appeared. Most importantly, people, through their sinfulness, lost the very close and direct communion with God. He no longer appeared to them visibly, as in Paradise — man’s prayer became imperfect.

Note: See Genesis, chap. 3:7-24.

 

[foszoe]

. Discussion of the Fall into Sin.

When God created the first man, He saw that he was very good, that man was directed towards God in love. There were no conflicts in the first created man. Man was a complete unity of spirit, soul and body, one harmonious whole — the spirit of man was directed towards God, the soul was united or freely submitted to the spirit, and the body to the soul. There was unity of purpose, direction, and will. Man was holy, becoming like God.

The will of God is specifically this: that man freely, that is, with love, strive towards God, the source of eternal life and blessedness, and that in this way he remain continually in communion with God, in the blessedness of eternal life. Such were Adam and Eve. Therefore they had illuminated reason and Adam knew every creature by name. This means that for him the physical laws of the formation of the earth and the animal world were made manifest — those laws, which we are now only partially discovering. By the fall into sin, men destroyed their internal harmony — the unity of spirit, soul and body — they upset their nature. There was no more unity of purpose, direction, and will.

In vain some people wish to interpret the fall into sin as allegory, that is, that the fall into sin consisted of the physical love between Adam and Eve, forgetting that the Lord Himself commanded them, "be fruitful and multiply..." Moses clearly recounts that, "Eve first sinned alone, and not together with her husband." Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow writes "How could Moses have written that if he were writing only allegorically, which some people like to find here?"

The result of the fall into sin was that our fore-parents, by giving in to the temptation, ceased to regard the forbidden fruit as a matter of the commandment of God and began to see it in relationship to themselves, to their feelings, and heart, and understanding, departing from the unity of God’s truth into a multitude of private thoughts and private wishes, not concentrated in the will of God, that is, departing into lust. Desire, having conceived sin, gives rise to active sin (James 1:14-15). Eve, tempted by the Devil, saw the forbidden tree not for what it was but what she wanted, in accordance with obvious forms of desire (I John 2:16; Gen. 3:6). What kinds of desire were found in the soul of Eve before the eating of the forbidden fruit? And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that is, imagined a certain special, extraordinarily pleasant taste in the forbidden fruit — this is lust of the flesh. And that it was pleasing to the eye, that is, it seemed to the woman to be more beautiful than all the other fruit — this is lust of the eyes, or the passion to acquire. It was desirable because it grants knowledge. The woman wanted to know the loftier, divine knowledge which the tempter offered her — this is the pride of life or the love of glory.

The first sin is born in sensuality, with the striving for pleasant feelings, for physical comfort; in the heart, with the desire for pleasure without discernment; and in the mind, with the fantasy of arrogant, varied knowledge. Thus, it penetrates all the powers of human nature.

The disrupting of human nature also includes the fact that sin turned or tore the soul from the spirit, and the soul, as a result, began to be attracted to the body, to the flesh, and to depend on it. The body, losing its former lofty power of the soul and itself a creation from nothingness, began to have attraction to sensuality, to emptiness, to death. Therefore the result of sin is illness, destruction, and death. The mind of man was darkened, the will weakened, the feeling distorted, conflicts arose, and the human soul lost purposeful striving towards God.

In this manner, having stepped over the limits established by the commandment of God, man turned his soul away from God, the true fullness and universal focal point, and became self-centered, enclosed in the darkness of sensuality, in the coarseness of matter. The mind, will and activity of men turned away from God to material creation, from the heavenly to the earthly, from the unseen to the seen (cf. Gen. 3:6). Deceived by the wiles of the tempter, man by his own will "is compared to the mindless cattle, and is become like unto them" (Ps. 48:12).

The disruption of human nature by ancestral sin — the disruption of soul and spirit in man, which now has an attraction to the sensual, is clearly expressed in the words of the Apostle Paul, "For the good that I would do, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. 7:19-20). Man constantly suffers from "pangs of conscience" when realizing his sinfulness, his criminality. In other words, it is impossible for man, by his own powers, without the interference or help of God, to restore his damaged and disrupted nature. Therefore, it was necessary for God Himself to come down and dwell upon the earth. The incarnation of the Son of God was necessary for the restoration of the fallen and corrupted nature of man, to save man from damnation and eternal death.

Foszoe Notes;

Here the discerning reader will notice a distinctive Orthodox approach which eliminates the view of sex as somehow sinful that culminates in the West with a desire to understand the mechanism through which "original sin" is passed down. Protestantism also takes up this view.

 

[foszoe]

Why Did the Lord God Permit the First Man to Fall into Sin?

Almighty God, without a doubt, could have prevented the fall of the first people, but He did not wish to stifle their freedom, because it is not in His nature to distort His own image in man. The image and likeness of God is expressed in the free will of man.

Prof. Nesmeloff explains this matter very well: "Because it is not clear and is even completely inconceivable for many people to understand why a mechanical salvation is impossible, we should examine this impossibility more closely. To save the first people by preserving the conditions in which they lived before the fall was impossible because their fall was such that they showed themselves to be not only mortal, but also to be criminal. This means that as long as they were aware of their crime, Paradise would in no way be possible for them because of their awareness of their own criminality. If it had happened that they forgot their crime, then by this same act they would only have confirmed their sinfulness, and the result would be that Paradise was impossible for them again because of their moral inability to approach that state in which their first life in Paradise took place. Consequently, the first people could not return themselves to the lost Paradise, not because God did not wish it, but because their own moral condition did not permit and could not permit this.

"The children of Adam and Eve were not guilty of their crime, and could not recognize themselves as criminal merely because their parents were criminals. There is no doubt that God, Who is likewise able to create man and to make an infant grow, could have brought forth the children of Adam from a state of sinlessness and placed them in the normal conditions of moral development. To achieve this, the following would be necessary:

a) The consent of God to the damnation of the first people;

b) The agreement of the first people to grant God rights over their children and to give up all hope of salvation forever; and,

c) The agreement of the children to leave their parents in a state of damnation.

"If we allow that the first two of these conditions would in some way be considered possible, nonetheless in no way would it be possible to realize the third necessary condition. For if the sons of Adam and Eve in fact did sin, then for them to let their father and mother perish for the crime that they committed would obviously only demonstrate that they were completely unworthy of Paradise and that they would have surely lost it themselves."

It would have been possible to destroy the men that sinned and create new ones, but would not the newly-created men, having a free will, have begun to sin? Man would then have been born in vain, and not even through a distant offspring would he have overcome the evil he had permitted to triumph over himself. But God was not willing to allow the man He had created to have been created in vain. For the omniscient God does not do anything in vain. The Lord God embraced the entire plan of the creation in His pre-eternal mind and there was included in His pre-eternal plan the incarnation of His Only-begotten Son for the salvation of fallen mankind.

In order not to violate the will of man, it was necessary that fallen mankind be restored by compassion and by love, so that man would wish voluntarily to return to God, and not by force nor necessity, for then men would not be worthy children of God. According to the pre-eternal mind of God, men must become like Him Himself, and sharers of eternal, blessed life with Him.

Thus, the all-wise, all-good and almighty Lord God did not count it unworthy of Himself to come down to the sinful earth, to take upon Himself our flesh, injured by sin, and to save us and return us to the paradisiacal blessedness of eternal life.

 

[JettaKnight]

In order not to violate the will of man, it was necessary that fallen mankind be restored by compassion and by love, so that man would wish voluntarily to return to God, and not by force nor necessity, for then men would not be worthy children of God. According to the pre-eternal mind of God, men must become like Him Himself, and sharers of eternal, blessed life with Him.

So the Orthodox view is that manchooses God?

After a close study of Romans 8 & 9, I'm convinced that man cannot, and will not, choose God - God chooses man.

 

[foszoe]

Concerning the Image and Likeness of God in Man

The Holy Church teaches that the image of God is to be understood as the powers of the soul: mind, will, feeling, which God granted to man; and the likeness of God is to be understood as the ability of man to direct the powers of his soul to becoming like God, to be perfected in striving for truth and good.

This can be more fully explained by the following:

The image of God is found in the qualities and powers of the soul. God is an invisible Spirit Who penetrates everything in the world, gives life to all, and at the same time He is a Being independent of the world. The soul of man, present in the entire body, and giving life to the body, even though it has a certain dependence on the body, still continues to exist after the death of the body. God is eternal; the soul of man is immortal. God is all-wise and all-knowing; the soul of man has the power to learn what is present, to remember the past and even at times to prophesy the future. God is all-good, that is, all-kind, all-merciful, and the soul of man has the power to love others and to sacrifice itself. God is almighty, the creator of all that is; the soul of man has the power and the ability to think, to make, to create, to build, etc. But, of course, there exists an immeasurable difference between God and the powers of the human soul. The powers of God are unlimited, and the powers of the human soul are very limited. God is a being that is absolutely free; the soul of man has only freedom of will. Therefore man can wish, but he can also not wish to be the likeness of God, for this depends on his own free desire, on his free will.

The likeness of God depends on the direction of spiritual abilities. This requires that man work on himself spiritually. If a man strives for truth and good, for the righteousness of God, then he becomes like God. However, if a man loves only himself, lies, makes enemies, does evil, cares only for earthly goods, thinks only about his body and does not care for his soul, then such a person ceases to be in the likeness of God and becomes in his life like a beast, and can finally become like an evil spirit, a devil.

 

[foszoe]

Since it it that time of year when Protestants celebrate protesting perhaps it is elucidating to consider the origins of Protestantism at least in a nutshell.

Abuses in the Roman Catholic church caused many of their membership to rebel against what they perceived as abuses. Some did this from within, others broke away and did it from without.

Much of the hubbub concerned the topic of what is salvation and how one obtains it. Mostly a faith vs works debate. This led to an either/or approach by the Protestants. It also lead to the elevation of certain books of the Bible and a corresponding desire to minimize other books. Romans vs James was a prominent example. This approach to scripture has fractured Protestantism. It has given credence to Protestant Christianity has been labelled as Pauline Christianity because so many conclusions reached within protestant circles depend heavily on Paul's writings to interpret the gospel of Christ instead of understanding Paul in light of the Gospels.

As with any pendulum swing, the middle ground is often ignored in favor of highlighting opposition and difference.

Painting with a broad brush, I see this tendency today among most Protestant denominations. An elevation of one scripture over another to support a doctrine that is less than 500 years old, that has usually been inherited by birth.

What in Romans 8, 9 makes this an either/or conclusion for that is the conclusion at which you seemed to have arrived? What other scriptures informed your study of Romans 8 and 9 that convinced you that your conclusion was correct? Were they any scriptures that challenged your conclusion that have to be explained in order to safeguard the conclusion which you have reached?

So the Orthodox view is that manchooses God?

After a close study of Romans 8 & 9, I'm convinced that man cannot, and will not, choose God - God chooses man.

 

[JettaKnight]

Luther, as a monk, was racked with self-doubt and belief that he could never be seen as righteous in the eyes of the Lord. Even with his austere lifestyle, he was still plagued with sin - sin he was convinced that couldn't be washed clean. One might believe that living an isolated life devoted to prayer and meditation while removing any worldly comforts would lead to righteousness and salvation - Luther's conscience told him it wasn't enough.

Luther had faith. Luther had works. Was it the wrong balance? It's hard to argue he didn't have enough works! That only leaves the option that his faith wasn't enough - or it was misguided.

For Luther, the answers lied in Galatians. Gal 2:11-21 tells of Paul's rebuke of Peter's insistence that the Jewish ceremonial laws must be maintained. Peter was adamant that Christians follow the law, i.e. pratice the works as it has been commanded. In verse 16, Paul clearly states that we are justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law. Galtians 3 continues on with line of reasoning, did you receive the Spirit through works or through faith?

Faith Alone

When Luther read God's Word without the overlay of the RCC his whole outlook was changed.

Scripture Alone

Salvation changed from he had to do into what Christ did for him. Freed from the guilt of sin, he could squarely focus on gift of Christ.


Christ Alone.



Now perhaps a counter would be to claim that Paul wasn't talking about all works, just the ceremonial laws. But, I ask you how different is the ceremonial law different from RCC laws regarding lent, days of obligation, fish fry Fridays, confession, holy rites, eschewing contraception, etc., etc.

So, does this give us carte blanch to sin?

Romans 6:1-2 makes it crystal clear this isn't the case. And I think this is also the point James makes. Simply saying a prayer at a youth event doesn't make you a Christian any more than getting dunked in a pond. James 2:18 is a counter those with "fire insurance" - people who go to church on Easter, just in case. Since none of us, or James, can see into the heart of man, what evidence is there of Christianity except for the outward exhibition of the power of sanctification? Thus, James is stating that faith without works is likely to be no faith at all. In the heart of a believer is the true desire to live out the Christian life - to be Christ like. And if there is no works in your life, well, are you really a Christian?

Without the guilt, without the obligations, I'm allowed to freely focus on a relationship with Christ - no intermediaries required. My sanctification is driven solely out of a love of Christ and gratitude for the price he paid.

Grace Alone

I want everything I do to be righteous, even though I know I will fail... probably at 10 am. Nevertheless, that's my motivation to serve God. This a stark contrast to the world's view that I deserve to be happy. Even many Christians fall for this in the form of prosperity theology - God can give me all the comfort life can offer if I just have enough faith.

Glory to God Alone

Romans 8 & 9 ... without a doubt a hard passage to understand like most of the meaty middle of Romans. It paints a portrait of us, a bunch of dogs and cats, sitting in an animal shelter and God coming in and adopting us.

If you go and adopt two cats, no one condemns you for not adopting all the cats. No, people praise you (in a small way) for lifting these creatures from their fate. And those same people don't look down at the cat and heap praises upon them for their part in the adoption. They didn't do anything - they didn't open the cage and reach out to you, they didn't win your heart by their good works of mouse hunting skills.

This is the point Paul makes. God chooses Isaac instead of Esau. Why? Not because of anything that cheat Isaac did, that's for sure. He did it to show that He is God. He alone is worthy of praise. He alone is in control of all. We are cannot do anything worthy apart from him.

 

[rvb]

I'm going out on a limb here, stretching my knowledge, so bear with me...

JK, that sounds like Calvanism? That we are all pre-destined. I've struggled with that since the age of ~13 when going through confirmation at my Presbyterian church and saying to the Pastor, "wait, time out, what!?" I struggle with the notion that we are ALL predestined, though I believe some are, such as pharaoh's heart being hardened for a purpose, or Isaac being chosen for a purpose / plan, of course He chose Paul, and the apostles, so there ARE "those that he predestined." If God chooses us, and not us him, why the Great Commission? He wants us to want Him (I suddenly picture Jesus as Cheap Trick singing "I want you to want me" hah! there's a visual!).... are you saying we don't have a say one way or the other whether we are saved through faith or not?

If God is saving us from the animal shelter, he chooses those that look up to Him vs pretending He's not there or who hiss and bite at him, right? It doesn't matter if we previously bit our owners or peed on the couch, just that we look up at him through the cage...

I see what Fosz writes about the importance of our free will in terms of our choosing to love God, and I've always agreed with that philosophically. But I also cannot ignore Romans 8. So I've always been torn on this. ... approaching 30 yrs of being torn on this. I wish someone could wrap it up and put a bow on it for me, but I guess by then protestants and Catholics will be back in the same pews! haha

-rvb

 

[JettaKnight]

On Sunday, while working in sound boot, my pastor called me a 10 point Calvinist.

A joke that's funny for about ten people.

Anyways, RC Sproul gave one of the best answers to your question about the Great Commission - we do it because we're commanded to do it. He then went on for another twenty minutes or so explaining it. If you're really interested in Calvinism theology, I suggest listening to Renewing Your Mind with R. C. Sproul as a starting point. You should be able to find back episodes that deal with the topic.

Nevertheless, I'll give my answer here, the same one I gave to my wife, who's not a Calvinist (or maybe she's come around). We don't know who God chooses, why He chooses, or how He chooses. We do know that the method of is through the Word, and without spreading the word, His goal can't be accomplished, or at least accomplished as intended. We do know that from our viewpoint there is act of believing that follows hearing the Word. The Calvinist would argue that on the surface it appears that simply hearing is enough, but the unseen action of the Spirit is what truly forces (i.e. irresistible grace) the person to receive the gift. In order for his glory to be known throughout the world, His name must be first spread throughout the world. Romans 10:14-21 is rather explicit in the need for the Gospel to go out.


As to the dogs and cats, well, the analogy starts to break down at that point... I chose Sir Reginald Fluffingbottom because he was a spunky cat with big paws, and Lady Penelope Meowmeowton was a cute little black snugglebug...




Which brings more glory - adopting a passive golden retriever or a yappy, bitey terrier? (doing the best I can here, b/c I detest most all non-working dogs)


And Lords knows I've bitten Him several times and routinely pee on his floor... but thankfully, He's quick to forgive and slow to anger.




Now the Arminian counterpoint: Rev. 3:20 seems to indicate that Jesus is on the outside trying to get in, but it's up to us to accept. How does this square away?

No one said theology was easy.

 

[JettaKnight]

Painting with a broad brush, I see this tendency today among most Protestant denominations. An elevation of one scripture over another to support a doctrine that is less than 500 years old, that has usually been inherited by birth.

The Copernican Heliocentric Model is less than 500 years old, is it any less valid?

Theology has a lot in common with astronomy - both are largely based on observation and built upon previous understanding. Copernicus wouldn't have got where he did without Ptolemy. And after him Kepler and Galileo continued to refine the model. They didn't consider his works unquestionable simply because he studied it first.

In both studies there's always been the admission that careful study can reveal some flaws in our understanding.

 

[JettaKnight]

JK, that sounds like Calvanism? That we are all pre-destined. I've struggled with that since the age of ~13 when going through confirmation at my Presbyterian church and saying to the Pastor, "wait, time out, what!?" I struggle with the notion that we are ALL predestined, though I believe some are, such as pharaoh's heart being hardened for a purpose, or Isaac being chosen for a purpose / plan, of course He chose Paul, and the apostles, so there ARE "those that he predestined." If God chooses us, and not us him, why the Great Commission? He wants us to want Him (I suddenly picture Jesus as Cheap Trick singing "I want you to want me" hah! there's a visual!).... are you saying we don't have a say one way or the other whether we are saved through faith or not?

I just caught this - please clarify "we are all predestined". Is that all the world or all the Christians or something else?

 

[T.Lex]

I think the many parables involving farming is intentional. (Yes, that might be too obvious to even be worth saying.)

Fruitful crops can occur randomly in nature. That's a fact.

But, having someone actively plant them and tend to them usually makes a better product.

Can God reach those who otherwise have not heard from a believer? Sure. He can do anything.

But, is it better to have us go out and express His identity and find fertile fields for His message? Probably. It also helps keep us in line, I think. It encourages accountability.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

I just caught this - please clarify "we are all predestined". Is that all the world or all the Christians or something else?

In Romans chapter 8 verses 28 - 30 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose. For those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the first born among many brothers and sisters. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified".

The notion of predestination is that God had chosen His people from the beginning of time. He knew who would come to Him, and who would not. (see also Matthew 22:14)

 

[BrettonJudy7]

So the Orthodox view is that manchooses God?

After a close study of Romans 8 & 9, I'm convinced that man cannot, and will not, choose God - God chooses man.

Agree 100 percent. Man is totally depraved from God and cannot be responsible for salvation, rather God sent Christ, without our acceptance, to die for our sins anyways. We are saved by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2:8 - 9)

 

[foszoe]

Cain and Abel.

After the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, they began to bear children, sons and daughters (cf. Gen. 5:4). They called their first son Cain and the second Abel. Cain was a worker of the soil and Abel shepherded flocks. Once, they brought offerings to God: Cain of the fruits of the earth, but Abel of the best beast of the flock.

Abel had a kind and meek nature; he brought his offering from a pure heart, with love and faith in the promised Saviour, with prayer for mercy and hope in the mercy of God; God accepted the sacrifice of Abel and its smoke rose into Heaven. Cain was cruel and evil. He offered his sacrifice only out of habit, without love and fear of God. The Lord did not accept his sacrifice, for the smoke from his sacrifice only spread along the earth.

After this, Cain became jealous of his brother. He called his brother out into the field and killed him. God spoke to Cain to make him repent, asking him, "Where is Abel, thy brother?"

Cain brazenly answered, "I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?"

Then God said to him, "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the ground. And now thou art cursed from the earth...a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be."

Cain, tormented by his conscience, ran with his wife from his parents into another land.

Human life is the gift of God; therefore, man does not have the right to deprive himself of it or to take another man’s life. Taking the life of one’s neighbor is called murder, and the taking of one’s own life is called suicide which is the most terrible sin. Only in the case of the insane is the sin of suicide sometimes pardoned.

In place of the murdered Abel, God granted Adam and Eve a third son, the pious Seth, and then there were many other children. Adam and Eve lived for a long time on the earth. Adam lived 930 years. They endured many sufferings and anguish, and in their hearts they repented of their sin and firmly believed in the promised Saviour. This faith saved them and now they are numbered among the Holy Forefathers.

Note: See Genesis, chaps. 4:1-16, 25; 5:3-5.

 

[rvb]

I just caught this - please clarify "we are all predestined". Is that all the world or all the Christians or something else?

Sorry, not clearly written. multi-tasking and hurrying...
so...

I guess I meant it to apply to all the world.

If God knows, before we breath our first breath, whether we will accept Him, then not only can we say there are those pre-destined to be saved and live eternity WITH God, but there are many pre-destined to live eternity WITHOUT God. The inverse must also be true. So predestination implies to me that God also creates people knowing they are destined for an eternity of fire and anguish. Therefore "we are all predestined" one way or the other; you can't say some of us are predestined to be saved without also implying some of us are predestined to burn. This is my struggle with a Calvanistic view; that doesn't sound like a God of grace and mercy.

When we read John 3:16, should we interpret it to say "For God so loved the predestined that he gave his one and only Son, that only those foreknown to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life?"

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

I don't think its a stretch to say that "omniscient" includes all permutations of the multiverse. From our limited vantage, something can seem "predestined." But, from an infinite perspective, all of the possible actions were allowed as part of the "set" or possibilities. So, all of our actions have been predestined and accounted for by the Creator, who has the authority and the ability to nudge any given variable to the extent He wants.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

Sorry, not clearly written. multi-tasking and hurrying...
so...

I guess I meant it to apply to all the world.

If God knows, before we breath our first breath, whether we will accept Him, then not only can we say there are those pre-destined to be saved and live eternity WITH God, but there are many pre-destined to live eternity WITHOUT God. The inverse must also be true. So predestination implies to me that God also creates people knowing they are destined for an eternity of fire and anguish. Therefore "we are all predestined" one way or the other; you can't say some of us are predestined to be saved without also implying some of us are predestined to burn. This is my struggle with a Calvanistic view; that doesn't sound like a God of grace and mercy.

When we read John 3:16, should we interpret it to say "For God so loved the predestined that he gave his one and only Son, that only those foreknown to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life?"

-rvb

I would not be the best to explain Limited Atonement, so here is an article that may help. Limited Atonement speaks about Jesus Christ dying for everyone, not in a literal sense as in every single human being in history, but in a sense that Jesus died for God's elect. Those whom He had chosen to be conformed to His image from the beginning of time, and the ones whom God has chosen for election (Matthew 22:14, Ephesians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Timothy 1:9)

In John 3:16, the "world" meaning only those that have been saved by Christ Jesus. If Jesus sacrifice was given to all of humanity, then why does not all come to believe in Him?

TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't have a lot of time, but I'll throw out some points to ponder.

• Does not the potter have power over the clay?
• Mankind chose to disobey and bring sin into the world.
• RVB, you know not everyone is saved. Not everyone gets into heaven. So, if the end result is the same, which fits scripture better - the view that we, in our sinfully nature, choose a God that's waiting on us, or that a merciful God chooses us with an inescapable embrace?
• Who are we to decide what attributes God can exhibit?
• If everyone gets into heaven, where's the justice? It's like getting valentine's card in grade school - you know that the cute girl gave you one only because the teacher made her give one to everyone in class. You'd get that card and it was covered in her contempt at having to give a card to you... (I'm revealing too much childhood details)