Posted on 06/16/2021 4:47:03 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
My understanding is that sin entered through the man because Eve was deceived and Adam wasn’t.
He ate knowingly. Therefore the responsibility for sin is Adam’s.
Yes. He acted on his own lusts and deliberately rebelled. No “Chavvah, what have you done” or any of that.
While it might be logical; it’s a sure way to get off into uncharted territory!
Since I’ve raised 4 goats from weaning time (13 years now)
I know that the way the kids act has given us humans the word for impulsiveness!
That group has eyes in the back of their heads.
No need to report, as they’ll find us!
LOL!
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.Which scriptures testify of Christ? I conclude that it is all scripture. It’s a book about Christ. When we read about Adam and Eve, we are also reading about Christ and the church. You pointed out the Adam was not deceived. That fits Christ. What about the church? If we say that Adam allowed Eve to be deceived, does that suggest that Christ will allow the church to be deceived? If you don’t find Christ in a passage of the Bible you are missing something.
True, but I tend to provide answers in anticipation of what atheists would say, and thus cut them off at the pass!
"I like your poem but I would have issue with a few of the points, #3 in particular goes against a number of verses (John 15:16, James 2:5, Matthew 24:14, Acts 10:41, John 1:12-13, John 6:35-37, etc.)"
you mean, "But he that can love must be able to choose, GOD's word to keep, or His fellowship to lose?" That is contextually referring to Adam being able to make moral choices, to obey God or not, vs. being as a cloud, while the degree of freedom man has extends even as to how immoral a man will be for while having a sinful nature, yet even lost souls have been given enough grace to make moral choices (Gn. 4:7) for which God hold him accountable for, vs simply being a slave living out a script.
Which freedom of choice does not contradict the Truth that God chooses us, (John 15:16) and thus enable and motivates us to choose Him, as God commands, and which we never could or would do otherwise. And then further works in us both to will and to do His will. (Jn. 6:44; 10:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:89, Phil. 2:12,13) And yet rewards us for our obedience of faith, (Heb. 10:35) for which only God deserves any credit, while the only thing we actually can and must take credit for is our disobedience, relative to our ability.
But while man cannot take any credit for believing and calling upon the Lord in faith for salvation, (Rm. 10:9013) yet man is not saved while he is unconscious, but makes a choice, which sets him apart from inanimate objects of those merely driven by instinct. Certainly man's freedom is not absolute, nor is ours in this (increasingly less) free country but man is indeed given the ability to choose and options to choose btwn, ultimately to love light over darkness, God over sin. Thus it remains that,
But he that can love must be able to choose
GOD's word to keep, or His fellowship to lose. Gn.2:16,17; Dt.30:15,19; Rm.6:23; Eph.2:1,5 4 The Serpent, so subtle, came up to Adam's Eve,
The Serpent, so subtle, came up to Adam's Eve, casting doubt, speaking lies, he worked to deceive.
She believed him, yielded to sin, and gave Adam to eat: Their eyes were then opened, and they fell in defeat.
GOD called for Adam, as he hid in the Garden; sin finds you out, and we all must seek pardon.
There are no unwritten official rules.
"What is the Bible Thumper Caucus?"
Since this requires an actual distinct group to exist, as Catholic, Protestant, evangelical, Calvinists, Pentecostal, SDA, etc. in order to define persons as belonging to it, while Bible Thumper is too amorphous to define members aside from the uninterested (like the poster who criticized the thread), then it is more of a facetious, humorous reference than an enforceable label. "The terms used in a caucus label are not necessarily precise with reference to Canon Law, theology or even dictionaries – but are intended to communicate briefly who should or should not post on a thread."
"Is there a list of religion caucuses?"
No, but example of "Catholic Caucus” gives you an idea of how a "caucus” label can be fitting.
"I think I understand the Catholic Caucus very well, "
Yes, although it excludes Sedevacantists, Orthodox, SSPX and Inactive Catholics.
Not for him there isn't! His end is already determined.
Thank you for the reply. You said there are no unwritten official rules. I can see that especially since when someone is engaged in hurtful behavior they seem to get a warning and if they control themselves, there will be no further mention of it.
Other than what is written on the Religion Moderator page, I know that there are some posting guidelines on the FR Home page, and I have also looked through Jim Robinson’s comment and post history and read what he has said. I would be happy to read anything else you recommend.
There are subjects of interest to me here, where opposing views squelch any useful discussion almost immediately. Would it be appropriate for me or anyone to attach a caucus label to my own posts? You are reluctant to seem to be making rules, which is understandable, but I would appreciate the benefit of anyone’s experience. I hate to learn things the hard way. It may be better to avoid the caucus designation and just let the chairs fly across the room. Fine with me, and whatever brings out the truth.
Certain there is one unofficial rule which people like Humblegunner have enforced passionately, the prohibition against posting anything associated with a blog. I do not recognize moderators enforcing this except that such posts are moved to bloggers and personal. I cannot say but I think that HG is somewhat begrudgingly appeased by this.
Thank you for your kind help and thanks for your contribution here. It really is a gift to the ungrateful, which God will reward.
Agree
That is not an unwritten official rule, but deals with a judgment of whether a rule has been broken. And their brevity and judicious and mature application of such is far far better than the over sensitive nanny state censorship of such a major forum as (so-called) christianforums.com that banned me (you could not even discuss discipline of mod actions in private emails)
"Would it be appropriate for me or anyone to attach a caucus label to my own posts? "
If you have a specific identifiable (not vague or fringe) known group fit for the RF, like KJV - only maybe. But just calling something a caucus does not mean the RM will recognize it as fitting.
"Certain there is one unofficial rule which people like Humblegunner have enforced passionately, the prohibition against posting anything associated with a blog."
No, i do not see Humblegunner chastising posters for posting anything associated with a blog, but for "blog pimping," meaning posting just a portion of an article, and not the meat of it, so that readers need to go to the page to read the rest, thereby gaining hit$ for the "pimp," when as the original artist, he could just post the whole thing on FR. I can understand posting a substantial portion of a very very long article with a link to supplemental material in order to not overwhelm readers here, but not brevity in order to get hits as with posting tidbits or the like.
And the latter can warrant some scolding, as may those who carelessly post the first 3 sentences (sometimes even including Facebook promos) when 300 word excerpts are allowed (as is the case for most), and a "Reader's Digest" edition could provide the meat of it. For Fr is a new aggregator, in which you can choose to have 250 article excerpts (at 100 words each) on the article page and skim thru such, and it saves must time to be able to see the meat of the article there or when you open it rather than having to open a new page (often with over 100-200 background network requests, vs. 3 for FR). Thus i posted An exhortation to those who post thread (normally post as much of the meat of the article as allowed, describe videos, etc.)
"Thank you for your kind help and thanks for your contribution here. It really is a gift to the ungrateful, which God will reward."
Glory to God if it helps.
This was so helpful Thank you again!
Dijer kidselee divey too, L-Z?
There is but one God. You know it, and the complement.
No, he could have stopped her and Satan.
To what end? I am not understanding. Rather than project, what I think you mean, perhaps you might help.
I’m not sure I agree with “downfall”, since you and I are living examples of the direction Adam took in the Garden. Isn’t everything that has happened to man since the Garden leading us to the need for a Savior to rescue us from a situation that we ourselves have no power to overcome? There is but one name given under Heaven whereby man might be saved. Acts 4:12 from memory, and poor memory.
Almost anything with cellulose in it.
However; they do NOT eat anything meat-related. If a roll I’ve brought home from the restaurant has any taste or smell of the meat; the cats will probably eat it - not the goats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.