No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[cadwell]

What I find intriguing is that the entire creation has come under a curse as per Romans 8 &c, and people accept this truth, but then say man get's to choose to obey God just like Adam, and if not then they become sinners like him. It is as if the universal consequences of the fall do not apply to them until they exercise almighty free will. Man-centered nonsense right there.

That’s a gross misrepresentation of anything that’s been said that goes counter to your own position. There is no disagreement that Adams fall impacts all mankind, the disagreement is HOW. The most I gather from your (and others) position is that Adam passed down some sort of “sin gene” and thus death to mankind. This mythical change in Adams dna that we all carry is the reason we die, babies die, everyone dies. That idea is an invention you base on scripture you misinterpret.

The Bible says that when God banished Adam from the garden, He directly attributed Adams eternal life, and thus impending death, on his eating from the tree of life. Genesis 3:22 makes known that it was eating from the tree of life that Adam could live forever. There was no magical change to his body inherently that caused death. Death came to all men by Adam because by him, man lost access to the tree of life. By Jesus, man regains that access (rev 22:14). Romans 5:19, through Adam MANY were made sinners. This born/conceived sinner nonsense is unscriptural.

 

[preacher4truth]

There’s that little island of righteousness that was left unaffected by the fall, their free will.

They would probably admit to man's physical corruption via the fall but still elevate man spiritually, not accepting the inability Jesus dogmatically referenced. It is, after all, all God. THAT is true salvation.

 

[guest1]

That’s a gross misrepresentation of anything that’s been said that goes counter to your own position. There is no disagreement that Adams fall impacts all mankind, the disagreement is HOW. The most I gather from your (and others) position is that Adam passed down some sort of “sin gene” and thus death to mankind. This mythical change in Adams dna that we all carry is the reason we die, babies die, everyone dies. That idea is an invention you base on scripture you misinterpret.

The Bible says that when God banished Adam from the garden, He directly attributed Adams eternal life, and thus impending death, on his eating from the tree of life. Genesis 3:22 makes known that it was eating from the tree of life that Adam could live forever. There was no magical change to his body inherently that caused death. Death came to all men by Adam because by him, man lost access to the tree of life. By Jesus, man regains that access (rev 22:14). Romans 5:19, through Adam MANY were made sinners. This born/conceived sinner nonsense is unscriptural.

Of course it was passed down otherwise one would never get sick, die or sin. Sin effected both mans spiritual and physical condition.

Duh................................................................................................................................................


This happens( sin passed down from the fall) even in the womb which is why we call it birth defects. You see its your human reasoning that prevents you from understanding the TRUTH of original sin. It must be spiritually discerned and you have demonstrated your complete lack in the things of the spirit. Your carnal approach to scripture prevents you from knowing the truth.

 

[preacher4truth]

That’s a gross misrepresentation of anything that’s been said that goes counter to your own position.

I'm going to address this: The above is nothing short of bearing false witness. Others take note.

 

[preacher4truth]

Of course it was passed down otherwise one would never get sick, die or sin. Sin effected both mans spiritual and physical condition. This happens in the womb which is why we call it birth defects.

Duh................................................................................................................................................

Exactly...

 

[ReverendRV]

I (mostly) agree with this (and maybe it’s I who am wrong) but I don’t know that it means we are real participants with Adam, but that when we are conceived we are imputed that guilt and God views us as if we did it ourselves. Maybe this is a distinction without a difference?

So, babies never love God, seeing that are conceived at variance with Him.

Ken Hammrick used to post here about Paternal Traducianism and Biblical Realism, IE Real Participation. Levi paid Tithes while in the Loins of Abraham. It's not my argument, but his; I often argued against him. He said this is real Calvinism, and used ECF's...

 

[guest1]

Ken Hammrick used to post here about Paternal Traducianism and Biblical Realism, IE Real Participation. Levi paid Tithes while in the Loins of Abraham. It's not my argument, but his; I often argued against him. He said this is real Calvinism, and used ECF's...

What happened to Ken ?

 

[PeanutGallery]

Unless the Holy Spirit regenerates their spirits, none of that will convince them to TRUST CHRIST and LOVE GOD the FATHER...

God saves those who believe by regeneration.
1Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

 

[ReverendRV]

What happened to Ken ?

I don't know. I think his book is out though...

 

[guest1]

I don't know. I think his book is out though...

Is this Kens

The Forgotten Realist

RECOMMENDING REALISM TO NOMINALISTIC CHRISTIANITY

kenhamrick.com

 

[SovereignGrace]

Ken Hammrick used to post here about Paternal Traducianism and Biblical Realism, IE Real Participation. Levi paid Tithes while in the Loins of Abraham. It's not my argument, but his; I often argued against him. He said this is real Calvinism, and used ECF's...

I dont know if it’s the same traducianism(meaning I don’t know if they’re differing views in that camp) but I do lean towards that view, but not fully convinced of it.

 

[ReverendRV]

I dont know if it’s the same traducianism(meaning I don’t know if they’re differing views in that camp) but I do lean towards that view, but not fully convinced of it.

Same here...

 

[guest1]

Same here...

Some of Kens writings were really deep and maybe its because I have not studied those topics as in depth as Ken obviously has with those subjects. For me to my shame there was a lack of interest in them not because they have no importance but because my personal priorities have always been on what I consider as does most Christendom to be the essentials of our faith. But I will say Ken was gifted and blessed with a brilliant mind whether or not you agreed with him.

 

[ReverendRV]

Some of Kens writings were really deep and maybe its because I have not studied those topics as in depth as Ken obviously has with those subjects. For me to my shame there was a lack of interest in them not because they have no importance but because my personal priorities have always been on what I consider as does most Christendom to be the essentials of our faith. But I will say Ken was gifted and blessed with a brilliant mind whether or not you agreed with him.

To some extent, we're all Paternal Traducianists because it explains why Jesus wasn't born in Original Sin; but our 'Real Participation' with Adam in the Fall is harder to swallow...

Email him

 

[guest1]

To some extent, we're all Paternal Traducianists because it explains why Jesus wasn't born in Original Sin; but our 'Real Participation' with Adam in the Fall is harder to swallow...

Email him

I found this interesting.

Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart​

Ken Hamrick Uncategorized March 6, 2013 2 Minutes

• The chart is intended to represent the spectrum, with those doctrines that are least likely to be held by Calvinists at the top, and those least likely to be held by Traditionalists at the bottom, but with incremental steps toward the middle mapped out. As you move toward the middle of the chart, you find more potentially common doctrines. The idea is that you could take a sliding bracket and move up or down the chart, so that you could have eternal security at the bottom of the bracket and Libertarian free will at the top of the bracket, and have a good representation of an actual set of doctrines held by many within the SBC. Additionally, it is illustrated that all of us “slide the bracket” one way or the other to some degree.
• The Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is often confused with the Baptist doctrine of eternal security (once genuinely saved, always saved), but the two are very different. In fact, the doctrine of perseverance of the saints has much in common with the Arminian doctrine of a losable salvation. Both perseverance and losable salvation portray apostasy as a real and ongoing danger, overcome only by the efforts of the believer in concert with the grace of God. In other words, in the perseverance doctrine, God keep His own by ensuring that their works are sufficient to keep them from falling away; while in the eternal security doctrine, those who genuinely believe in Christ are forever secure based on the works of Christ alone—there is no danger of apostasy.
• The term, Traditionalist, is not precisely defined, and covers both non-Augustinians (denying prevenient grace and total inability of the sinner, etc.) as well as those who are more Augustinian (affirming prevenient grace and total inability, etc.).
• The distinction between moral inability and natural inability was taught by Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller. A natural inability is like a man born blind, who cannot see no matter how much he might want to. Natural inability provides an excuse. A moral inability is like a rebellious child who holds his hands over his eyes and refuses to see. The inability in both cases is just as debilitating — both will fall into the ditch if they try to walk — but the latter inability provides no excuse.
• This was also posted at SBC Open Forum.

 

[ReverendRV]

I found this interesting.

Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart​

Ken Hamrick Uncategorized March 6, 2013 2 Minutes

• The chart is intended to represent the spectrum, with those doctrines that are least likely to be held by Calvinists at the top, and those least likely to be held by Traditionalists at the bottom, but with incremental steps toward the middle mapped out. As you move toward the middle of the chart, you find more potentially common doctrines. The idea is that you could take a sliding bracket and move up or down the chart, so that you could have eternal security at the bottom of the bracket and Libertarian free will at the top of the bracket, and have a good representation of an actual set of doctrines held by many within the SBC. Additionally, it is illustrated that all of us “slide the bracket” one way or the other to some degree.
• The Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is often confused with the Baptist doctrine of eternal security (once genuinely saved, always saved), but the two are very different. In fact, the doctrine of perseverance of the saints has much in common with the Arminian doctrine of a losable salvation. Both perseverance and losable salvation portray apostasy as a real and ongoing danger, overcome only by the efforts of the believer in concert with the grace of God. In other words, in the perseverance doctrine, God keep His own by ensuring that their works are sufficient to keep them from falling away; while in the eternal security doctrine, those who genuinely believe in Christ are forever secure based on the works of Christ alone—there is no danger of apostasy.
• The term, Traditionalist, is not precisely defined, and covers both non-Augustinians (denying prevenient grace and total inability of the sinner, etc.) as well as those who are more Augustinian (affirming prevenient grace and total inability, etc.).
• The distinction between moral inability and natural inability was taught by Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller. A natural inability is like a man born blind, who cannot see no matter how much he might want to. Natural inability provides an excuse. A moral inability is like a rebellious child who holds his hands over his eyes and refuses to see. The inability in both cases is just as debilitating — both will fall into the ditch if they try to walk — but the latter inability provides no excuse.
• This was also posted at SBC Open Forum.

Yeah, I forgot he held to Moral Inability...

 

[guest1]

That chart was very helpful to understand the differences. I’m a visual learner and that helped me.

It was helpful for me as well.

 

[cadwell]

Of course it was passed down otherwise one would never get sick, die or sin. Sin effected both mans spiritual and physical condition.

Strawman. I dont deny the impact, my argument is about HOW we are impacted. You claim dna, or genetics, or heredity, or whatever else NON BIBLICAL explanation you parrot. The bible says that Adams sin impacted man in that he (and thus man) was banished from the garden, without freedom to eat from the tree of life, and live forever.

Gen 3
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

That is how by one man death passed to all men. Thats the difference in our arguments. Yours is based on vain philosophies fabricated centuries ago, and mine is based on the mouth of God.

Duh................................................................................................................................................


This happens( sin passed down from the fall) even in the womb which is why we call it birth defects.

YOU say that, the bible says no such thing. God didnt alter mans physical makeup because of Adam. God simply placed two angels with flaming swords in front of the tree of life because of Adam.

You see its your human reasoning that prevents you from understanding the TRUTH of original sin. It must be spiritually discerned and you have demonstrated your complete lack in the things of the spirit. Your carnal approach to scripture prevents you from knowing the truth.

Useless grandstanding as always. If you want to talk about the mark of a false teacher, one of them is how they always have some deep "spiritual" understanding that others dont. Thats their excuse for their non biblical philosophies, its just too "spiritual" to be understood. Hogwash. Your doctrine denies the word of God. Adam lived forever because he ate of the tree of life, not because we was genetically immortal. His sin doesnt make people sinners from conception, it makes people unable to access that which keeps us alive forever (the tree of life), from conception. That the ultimate realization of the cycle from life to death to life, from Adam to Jesus.

Revelation 22
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[cadwell]

I'm going to address this: The above is nothing short of bearing false witness. Others take note.

You dont get to tell me what my argument is. I am more than capable of speaking for myself. Anything you say about my argument that I dont say myself is a misrepresentation. I will kindly ask again, please refrain from misrepresenting me. The only thing I am taking note of is your continued inability to directly address my argument in favor of this useless ad hominem.

 

[guest1]

Strawman. I dont deny the impact, my argument is about HOW we are impacted. You claim dna, or genetics, or heredity, or whatever else NON BIBLICAL explanation you parrot. The bible says that Adams sin impacted man in that he (and thus man) was banished from the garden, without freedom to eat from the tree of life, and live forever.

Gen 3
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

That is how by one man death passed to all men. Thats the difference in our arguments. Yours is based on vain philosophies fabricated centuries ago, and mine is based on the mouth of God.

YOU say that, the bible says no such thing. God didnt alter mans physical makeup because of Adam. God simply placed two angels with flaming swords in front of the tree of life because of Adam.


Useless grandstanding as always. If you want to talk about the mark of a false teacher, one of them is how they always have some deep "spiritual" understanding that others dont. Thats their excuse for their non biblical philosophies, its just too "spiritual" to be understood. Hogwash. Your doctrine denies the word of God. Adam lived forever because he ate of the tree of life, not because we was genetically immortal. His sin doesnt make people sinners from conception, it makes people unable to access that which keeps us alive forever (the tree of life), from conception. That the ultimate realization of the cycle from life to death to life, from Adam to Jesus.

Revelation 22
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Your human pelagian reasoning is highly offense. All Pelagians like you which are considered heretics and heterodox by Historic Christendom deny original sin. You are outside of Christianity whether or not you are willing to admit that cad.

hope this helps !!!