When you change the common meaning of a word, it would be wise to define it for the sake of better communication even though it is done without any recognizable authority to do so, regardless how "justified" it may seem to you.
Kosta, you still harp on Pecca Fortier even after I posted an extremely lengthy dissertation on it that I don't remember you even challenging.
Guilty as charged, FK. I can't answer all lengthy diatribes from a dozen or so concurrent posters. If I found something new or something that hasn't been rehashed in the past, or if I had changed my mind vis-a-vis Luther's pecca fortiter, I would have replied. My silence is usually an indication that something is "same old, same old."
I surmised that was because you wanted to keep bringing it up.
No, it's because I didn't find anything new in it. I will bring it up when the context calls for it, not to annoy you.
For that reason I am not going to use the word "command". That is, I do not want you to quote me the way you quote Luther
That depends on the context of what you write and not on one word.
It was God's choice by ordination, and Adam's choice by execution.
Huh? It is my choice by "ordination" and the computer's "choice" by execution? I push the buttons and the computer does the what I want it to do. The computer has no choice, executive or otherwise. The computer does what I tell it to do.
If God wills us to do things then we do it, like a computer. No choice of execution here.
Adam and Eve had no chance against the serpent and God let it happen
No, according to the Reformed theology, God specifically made the serpent, and placed him in the garden so as to deceive Eve and make Adam fall for it. God didn't just "let it happen." He orchestrated the whole thing—out of "love" no doubt.
If I put my "power" over you (i.e. by hypnosis), so that you cannot resist, and make you commit a crime while in that state, claiming that I am "guilty" only of "allowing it to happen" would not stand.
Of course Adam wanted to sin
This means you are suggesting that Adam's created nature (before the Fall) was sinful? That's a new one! And God called all His worked "good?" The innovations just keep piling up along with freelance definitions of words.
Now, if you want to blame God for all sin because He created Adam with the capacity for sin, then you can make a case. But that's where you have to go. For your side, either man is sovereign and autonomous above God's will, OR, God authors all sin. We disagree.
Reformed theology leads exactly to that end: if God didn't want evil in the world, then evil would not be in the world. The only reason evil exists in the world is because God made it.
The Christian view is that gave man freedom to choose, and free choice can lead to more than one choice. Since freedom is something God willed, we cannot take that freedom away. You are free to make correct choices until the day you die; and you are also free not to make them. Even when you are trapped and have no way out, you can still choose God and give yourself to Him.
God creates all individuals, and the original sin they are born with is directly a result of Adam's free will choice to sin
So, God creates all men with defective will because of Adam? Or is it that Adam's nature changed after the Fall and fallen humans have fallen offspring by nature? Thus, like a drug-addicted baby, whose addiction is not his, but his mother's fault, man's addiction to sin is a consequence of Adam's sin and not his sin.
A drug addict may wish to rid himself of the curse, but his will is too weak and needs a physician to cure him. But in order to cure him, he must be willing to cooperate with the physician and follow his advice. Being sick is not a sin in itself. It's how you got sick that could be.
I just report what the Bible describes
According to your own definitions.
Under the Apostolic view, God appears to let His children run amok, doing whatever they want at all times
Nonsense, FK. The Church doesn't teach that, and you know that. :)
Any faith that holds to the scriptures as closely as the Reformed faith does MUST seem like it's on the fringes of Christianity from the extra-scriptural and contra-scriptural perspective of Apostolic Tradition and thought
Any religion, sect or cult that teaches that God created evil is not Christianity, never was, and never will be.
I'm not changing any common meanings, I am using them. :) The distinction I am drawing is that "command" is from a superior TO a subordinate. God gives His children many commands in the scriptures. "Ordain" means to decree that "X" will happen by means I determine. Many times an ordination will include commands, but it doesn't have to. Therefore, God does not communicate to His children saying "I command you to do evil". And no one has cause to say "I hear and obey you God, I will do evil". That doesn't happen.
FK: "Kosta, you still harp on Pecca Fortier even after I posted an extremely lengthy dissertation on it that I don't remember you even challenging."
Guilty as charged, FK. I can't answer all lengthy diatribes from a dozen or so concurrent posters. If I found something new or something that hasn't been rehashed in the past, or if I had changed my mind vis-a-vis Luther's pecca fortier, I would have replied. My silence is usually an indication that something is "same old, same old."
I have never seen you address any of the arguments in that paper so I just assumed you couldn't refute any of the arguments. I suppose I am forced to continue to do so until I see otherwise. I gave you access to a good refutation of your view of pecca fortier (coincidentally six months ago today) and you dismissed it with virtually no comment. That just tells me that you are uninterested in what Luther was really talking about.
FK: It was God's choice by ordination, and Adam's choice by execution.
Huh? It is my choice by "ordination" and the computer's "choice" by execution?
No, I reject the premise of any comparison between God and man, and man and computer. It doesn't fit at all. If anything, there are some on the Apostolic side that see man as machine, but none on the Reformed side.
If God wills us to do things then we do it, like a computer. No choice of execution here.
No, not like a computer at all. Man has a will.
No, according to the Reformed theology, God specifically made the serpent, and placed him in the garden so as to deceive Eve and make Adam fall for it. God didn't just "let it happen." He orchestrated the whole thing—out of "love" no doubt.
While God certainly made the serpent, the Bible says no where that God "commanded" him to go into the garden and do what he did. He just appears and we presume that a sovereign God must have allowed that. But, it WAS a knowing allowance.
If I put my "power" over you (i.e. by hypnosis), so that you cannot resist, and make you commit a crime while in that state, claiming that I am "guilty" only of "allowing it to happen" would not stand.
No. Hypnotism is a positive act. I was fine before, but then you acted and I was hypnotized. God does nothing like that when sin is ordained. By comparison God just leaves the room, leaving the person to his own devices. God leaves him CLOSER to his born nature. That is moving in the opposite direction of hypnotism.
FK: Of course Adam wanted to sin.
This means you are suggesting that Adam's created nature (before the Fall) was sinful? That's a new one!
No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Adam was not created with a sin nature. The Bible is clear about that. I was saying that Adam wanted to sin at that particular time, i.e., that he was not compelled to sin by God acting directly on him. If you disagree that Adam wanted to sin, then who do YOU say forced him to sin?
Reformed theology leads exactly to that end: if God didn't want evil in the world, then evil would not be in the world. The only reason evil exists in the world is because God made it.
Evil is not a "thing" to be made, it is not a creation. It is the absence of God. If God had put His positive protection on all things for all time in the universe, then there would be no such thing as evil. However, God chose differently. If you blame God for that, then you place a duty upon Him.
So, God creates all men with defective will because of Adam?
Defective nature, yes. Paul talks extensively about this.
Or is it that Adam's nature changed after the Fall and fallen humans have fallen offspring by nature?
No, that can't be the case because for example:
Jer 1:5 : "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
There are several other examples just like this. God creates each one of us.
Thus, like a drug-addicted baby, whose addiction is not his, but his mother's fault, man's addiction to sin is a consequence of Adam's sin and not his sin.
It sounds like you're sort of trying to take both sides of the position. :) Man does not create man, God does. God creates all things. When God creates us now, Adam's sin "goes into" the new creation. God obviously set it up that way, since there was no requirement that Adam's sin be passed down, but by God's ordination.
FK: Under the Apostolic view, God appears to let His children run amok, doing whatever they want at all times.
Nonsense, FK. The Church doesn't teach that, and you know that. :)
I don't know that. :) I have been told a thousand times that God never interferes with the free will of men. When does He do so?