Did God causally determine Cain's offering

TomFL

Well-known member
No, libertarian free will is. (To be libertarian free will, can there be a sin nature? Free will can't be libertarian if it is bound to anything, such as a sin nature. If you believe there is no sin nature, then you have sunk to pelagianism.)
Sorry no libertarian free will is not Pelagianism

Pelegianism at least as it came to be reported claimed man was uneffected by the fall

Libertarian free will at least the soft version I have defined affirms man was effected by the fall and presupposes a sin nature

Historically all church fathers up to Augustine who converted from free will back to a more deterministic view from his gnostic manichean roots; affirmed free will while opposing Pelagianism
 

armylngst

Well-known member
Sorry no libertarian free will is not Pelagianism

Pelegianism at least as it came to be reported claimed man was uneffected by the fall

Libertarian free will at least the soft version I have defined affirms man was effected by the fall and presupposes a sin nature

Historically all church fathers up to Augustine who converted from free will back to a more deterministic view from his gnostic manichean roots; affirmed free will while opposing Pelagianism
Just what do you think it means when it claims man was unaffected by the fall? It means, no sin nature. Libertarian free will, with no fetters attached, or it isn't really libertarian.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Just what do you think it means when it claims man was unaffected by the fall? It means, no sin nature. Libertarian free will, with no fetters attached, or it isn't really libertarian.
Seriously ?

i just told you I posted a definition which denies man is uneffected by the fall

That soft libertarian free will denies man was uneffected by the fall

In other words affirms man was effected by the fall

You continue posting your assumptions rather that what is stated

Please take the time to understand what you are objecting to
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Deal with instead of running from the issue, That is not the point being discussed

nowhere was Abel's righteousness grounded on his understanding of gen 3:15
You imagining things. Abel believed the Gospel and was Justified by Faith. Gen 3 15 is about Christ !
 

TomFL

Well-known member
You imagining things. Abel believed the Gospel and was Justified by Faith. Gen 3 15 is about Christ !
So why can't you produce a verse which actually states Abel was saved based on what he believed about Gen 3:15

Its absence testifies against your view
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Already done, you didnt pay attention, thats what you get, and will always get from me after I explained something to you once and you ignore it.
LOL

You ignore almost every objection posted to your claims and you are going to get on your high horse and refuse to show where you claimed to deal with something 1X

I say it does not exist
 

armylngst

Well-known member
Seriously ?

i just told you I posted a definition which denies man is uneffected by the fall

That soft libertarian free will denies man was uneffected by the fall

In other words affirms man was effected by the fall

You continue posting your assumptions rather that what is stated

Please take the time to understand what you are objecting to
If we are affected by the fall, and so bound by sin, incapable of choosing anything but sin, then how can we act like we are unaffected by the fall, and somehow choose righteousness? The Bible is clear that in our sin, our righteousness is as filthy rags, the same filthy rags worn by the unrighteous sinner. In other words, there is no difference.

Some say that God looked forward in time, saw those who would be righteous, and chose them, except that would mean that these people were unaffected by the fall. God is choosing them to tie up loose ends, and take the credit, right? Yet you just said that man is affected by the fall. You can't have it both ways. Either God chose man, and because God chose them they got saved, or man chose righteousness, and because man chose righteousness, they walked into heaven. (That is pelagianism, for if they are truly righteous, then they have no sin, and are unaffected by the fall.) There is no middle ground here. Jesus made that quite clear, once again, in His answer to the disciples to the question of "Who then can be saved?" "With man, this is impossible..." So, how do you squeeze in possible into that statement? It is unrelated to the second part of Jesus statement, because it is separated by a but. "but with God, all things are possible." So...God can save man, but man cannot save himself, whether by choice, or by action. If God chose, then you can be saved. (Obviously, I say, you will be saved, since God is all in all, and there is nothing that can stand between Him and His will.)

So, how can you reconcile what you say about free will, with what Jesus said?
 
Top