Co-savior theology (point of view, blessings, support, mention)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have asked you a couple of time if Adam could have eaten from the tree of life, you said NO. So how is it that Adam than had the choice between the two trees?
I have attempted to explain that Scott. That's what my questions about God and choice were all about.
1. I believe God can make choices.
2. You said God is a puppet to His nature. I would not put it that way but I agree with the idea.
Put those two together and you should be able to see why I believe that one can make choices even if they are bound by the limitations of their heart.
Adam could have eaten of the tree of Life....there was no rule against it. It was under his care, and was meant for food.....
And the rich young man could have sold all that he had and followed Christ.... except for the fact that he didn't want to because he loved his riches too much.
Well that is what this whole things is about Bob, I don’t believe evil is necessary for God to make man in His image and likeness. You seem to believe God could not make man in His image and likeness without man first being disobedient and nothing in scripture shows disobedience leads to life.
I don't believe disobedience is a necessary ingredient. I believe an experience of evil, overcoming evil with good, loving your enemies, blessing those who curse you,. etc. Those are necessary.
Quote:
No you believe he was only the offspring of God, but son and offspring come from two different Greek words. So I’ll believe what the scripture says Adam was a son of God.
Actually the verse I had in mind does not actually have the greek word "son" in it. Is there another verse?
Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God
At any rate, I'm not saying that Adam was never a Son of God in the spiritual sense. I'm saying he was like everyone else and had to become one by being born from above.
Quote:
I have looked it up brother and gave 20 or so scriptures that show the freewill offering is done by our freewill. Not one of you guys who disbelieve in freewill have even bothered to reply to them.
Sorry Scott... if I read that post, I don't remember reading it. Let me know where it is and I'll take a look at it..
Quote:
Obviously that is not what you see in scripture brother; however, I do see it in scripture so it is not just what I think as you seemed to indicate here.
I wasn't indicating anything about you. I was indicating that my natural leanings would be in agreement with you and it is only because of scripture that I am pushed against those leanings.
And the rich young man could have sold all that he had and followed Christ.... except for the fact that he didn't want to because he loved his riches too much.
The job of Adam was to care for the tree of Life and to eat of it's fruit.
Im not sure the job of the rich kid was to give his money away....That was something that was different than his actual job.
But you are correct, the kid could have acted as Jesus suggested he do...
God can not change His mind.
God cant learn anything new.
God cant repent of anything he did before.
God cant be talked into anything.
But humans can do all of that stuff, and so many of us tend to think that God acts in the same manner as humans do...
But he dont.
This means that when you pray you should do so as a trusting child talks to a loving parent...and not as a used car salesman who is talking someone into doing something with a clutter of great sounding reasons....
I don't think the verb conjugation supports that theory.
If the "for to do" referred to
- God, the verb would be 2nd person singular (since the passage is addressing God)
- Christ, the verb would be 3rd person singular
- God and Christ, the verb would be 2nd person plural
- Herod, etc. if would be 3rd person plural.
I don't have e-sword and don't know if it even has that info. But it appears to be 3rd person plural (i.e. they) based on the fact that the verb spelling matches the verse below from Luke which is clearly 3rd person plural (parents) and the verb spelling would be different were it singlular or 2nd person.
Luke 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
Acts 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
I suspect that's why every translation says what they say. But if it turns out the verb is anything but 3rd person plural, I think I'd agree with you on that verse Scott.
Bob this below is not me, its Adam clarke who was a scholar of Hebrew, Latin and Greek.
Verse 26. Against the Lord and against his Christ.] kata tou cristou autou should be translated, against his ANOINTED, because it particularly agrees with on ecrisav, whom thou hast ANOINTED, in the succeeding verse. Verse 27. There is a parenthesis in this verse that is not sufficiently noticed: it should be read in connection with chap. iv. 28, thus: For of a truth against thy holy childJesus, whom thou hast anointed, (for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done,) both Herod and PontiusPilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gathered together.
It is evident that what God's hand and counsel determined before to be done was not that which Herod, PontiusPilate, the Gentiles, (Romans,) and the people of Israel had done and were doing; for, then, their rage and vaincounsel would be such as God himself had determined should take place, which is both impious and absurd; but these gathered together to hinder what God had before determined that his Christ or Anointed should perform; and thus the passage is undoubtedly to be understood.
Although I seen this before I read Clarke commentary on it I did not understand why I seen it the way I did. But after reading Clarkes commentary on it 2 days ago and the way those scriptures should be read because of the green highlighted part it all fell into place.
Of course your free to disagree with Clarkes findings concerning the green highlighted part, but I would think he had a far greater understanding of the Greek then either of us do.
I have attempted to explain that Scott. That's what my questions about God and choice were all about.
1. I believe God can make choices.
2. You said God is a puppet to His nature. I would not put it that way but I agree with the idea.
Put those two together and you should be able to see why I believe that one can make choices even if they are bound by the limitations of their heart.
Bob your saying Adam could not freely eat from the tree of life because of the limitation of his heart. I don't think scripture backs that up brother.
For if Adam was limited by his heart than God would not have told him he could freely eat. By God telling Adam he could freely eat shows that the Father had drawn Adam to Himself for only those the Father has drawn to Himself can freely eat from life/Christ.
Thus Adam had the choice of life or death, and chose death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
