Genesis Chapter 3 Continued (Fourth Try)

I think we ought to focus, initially at least, on the temptation account in vv.1-7, especially what is known as "the Lie."

These verses present what may very well be the most significant data concerning Satan in the entire Bible. It is the Bible's own introduction of Satan. It sets the sin-scene for the entire Bible.

The Genesis 3 story shows us how Satan ordinarily works his deadly deceptions: he tampers with the Word of God to produce a roundabout suggestion that the Creator is never to be feared. He gets sinners to think that an unbelieving, disobedient, Creator-ignoring spirit is actually okay.

In an obvious sense, modern Christianity has just largely bought into Satan's lie and called that the gospel. It's a "Don't worry: Be happy" pseudo-gospel. It's the pseudo-gospel of "I'm okay; you're okay." It's the pseudo-gospel which ultimately regards God as little more than the happy, sentimental character on a smiling-face button.

According to the Book of Proverbs, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. This verse necessarily declares that if you bypass the fear of God, you are a fool. Period.

My concern here is that a kind of Positive Mental Attitude (PMA) has been substituted for real faith. It is an almost unfathomably nasty deception. It is the wide-doorway deception which the Lord Jesus warned about. It involves denying the bad news of sin. That, in turn, feels somewhat like good news--and presto, ladies and gentleman!--we have a kind of "doorway experience"!

The whole thing is a non-saving farce. The poor hypocrite who is trying to substitute PMA for really knowing God--knowing the Lord for real--has never really embraced the Good News of the Atonement. He just hasn’t ever really faced the bad news of the Fall.

In short, he has never really repented. He has missed the narrow doorway of true salvation. The only reason why he believes he is saved is because he is an unbeliever. (Think about that ugly little paradox for a while.)

According to the Lord Jesus Himself, the wide-doorway experience is a lot more common than the narrow-doorway experience.

Dressing up your religiosity with the name "Jesus" doesn't fix the problem. There are a lot of folks who get sentimentally religious around Christmas time. Some of them even think Santa Claus is a sad departure from the true story of Christmas. They prefer nativity scenes over sleighs and reindeer. But some of these same folks think of Jesus as though He is just the porcelain baby in the nativity scene. They don't really know Him at all. They are actually idolaters. They have never really repented in the fear of God. (Many of them even realize this--sort of--at some level of their deceitful and desperately wicked hearts. But they have never realized it in the awful way of repentance.)

What I am ultimately saying in this introductory discussion of the Fall is that the Lie of Eden infects the souls of Adam's offspring. Having embraced the Lie in a racial way in the Fall (Adam is the Hebrew word for man, of course), they are stuck in it. If they make strictly halfhearted "efforts" to seek the Lord in the gospel, Satan just reiterates the "Don't worry: Be happy" lie in their souls. This blocks conversion. In effect, it blocks conversion by falsely approximating it!

In a very real manner of speaking, it is Satan's job to block conversions. And he is very, very good at his job. Don't kid yourself about that. Examine yourself to see whether you are really in the faith at all. That's not merely my admonition. It is Paul's own imperative, Paul's own warning.

Notice that if the "Don't worry: Be happy" LIE of Eden infects the souls of all Adam's offspring, if it is a demonic thing which now infests the race of man, it will prevent a sinner from seeking the Lord in the only way which even counts as seeking. ("You shall seek Me," the Lord said through Jeremiah, "And you shall find Me on the day that you shall seek Me with your whole heart.") This accounts for the strange verse in Romans 3 which says that there is NONE that seeketh after God.

This opens up all sorts of theological questions which are terribly important. If we really care about our own souls, we will dare to study the Fall, we will dare to try to understand what is really going on in the race of man and how it really traces back to the Lie of Eden. If we really love the Lord Jesus, if we really want to serve Him in the gospel, we will want to study the Fall and its demonic effects in order to become more competent spiritual warriors for the Lord Whom we confess with our lips.

This stuff, then, is monumentally serious. If anyone loves not the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed.

In a later post, I will offer some more specific analysis of what Satan actually said to Eve. Eventually I will show Freepers the very spooky theological implications of what Satan said.

I will show you from this why I am Calvinist. I will show you why even though I love Arminians, I definitely do loathe Arminianism with every fiber of my being.

9 posted on 4/12/02 7:30 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, the next thing to notice is that that the Lie In Eden really is a counterfeit of the gospel itself!

Notice how Satan "Christianized" his pagan lie in the encounter with Eve. He promised Eve eternal life and exemption from punishment through the forgiveness of her sin (Genesis 3:4). He suggested that all of the pleasurable things of Creation were specifically intended for her happiness (Genesis 3:6a). He displayed his uncanny wisdom and offered her the same if shew would follow his lead (Genesis 3:6b). He specifically promised that she would acquire a discerning conscience through her determination to govern herself under his overall guidance (Genesis 3:5b). He even promised that she would be godlike (Genesis 3:5a).

Every single one of these points has a correspondence with things which we find in the real gospel.

Now, what do you suppose we should make of that in regard to the deception character of Satan's lie? (I have some thoughts on this, as you already realize!)

MORE TO COME LATER the_doc http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/664598/posts?page=143#143 ---------------------------------------------------------

In the middle of that lengthy re-post, I demonstrated that the Lie of Eden was a phony gospel. (Lurkers who haven't read that demonstration ought to go back and read it before going further.)

This idea that the Lie of Eden was a kind a phony gospel is important in Biblical theology. When we say that our status in Adam needs to replaced by a new status in Christ, we are actually saying that the phony gospel through which we became lost has to be replaced in our souls by the True Gospel; the one which saves!

Furthermore, believing the Truth (faith) has to replace believing the Lie (God-hating, Truth-suppressing wickedness [Romans 1:18-32]).

18 posted on 4/13/02 8:54 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

The real problem is that reprobates prefer to go to hell. They hate God. They'd like to get as far from God as possible. God grants them their wish, so they have no cause to complain.

Someone might say: But how can this be so? They say they want to go to heaven rather than to hell.

In the first place, it's because they do not know the real God (and don't even want to know Him). They want to go to the heaven of their imaginations, the dwelling place of the God of their imaginations.

There is another reason why their choosing faculty is discovered to be perverse. It's because the gospel of REAL faith--not the phony kind which is so common in our day--does not merely present a choice of heaven versus hell. It actually presents the choice of this world versus the World to Come.

And the reprobate will always choose this world. He is choosing hell. This world is, in fact, the ante-room of hell. It will soon be burning.

22 posted on 4/14/02 8:38 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

In an earlier post, I said that the Truth contained in the Lord's gospel has to replace Satan's Edenic Lie in the souls of sinners.

What do I mean by replacing the Lie? Well, the idea actually means several things. For our present purposes, I would say that the Truth has to replace the individual's inborn and perniciously stupid disregard for the True and Living God.

The attitude which all lost sinners have toward their own Creator is completely idolatrous. If they have any thoughts concerning a Creator, they have fleeting and/or completely stupid thoughts of Him. In other words, they never really think of HIM at ALL.

Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill underscores this problem. He pointed out that the Athenians had an altar to a God Whom they did not even know! (The Athenians probably thought they were pretty shrewd in trying to "cover their bases." But their approach was utterly inadequate!)

What I am saying is that the "Don't worry: Be happy" lie of Eden--which specifically said that the Creator does not need to be feared, much less obeyed perfectly, has somehow demonically infected the souls of the entire Adamic race. The children of Adam are unblieving, God-ignoring fools.

(In the Fall, Adam [along with his wife, who was one with him] spurned the Creator whom he actually knew personally. And Adam, together with his wife, constituted the entire human race. So, the entire human race spurned God. This infuriated God against man. In other words, it was a racial crime--since every human being other than Jesus Christ Himself was obviously in Adam in a racial sense, to use the language of Romans 5:12f, at the time of the Fall.

I realize that a lot of people complain at the idea that God would suffer the entire family of Adam to fall under an utterly awful condemnation when all but two members of the racial family remained unborn, but that is precisely what happened. God holds Adam's offspring accountable for a crime which they committed in Adam. God is angry against man.)

God has given Adam's offspring over to some kind of demonic power, to an evil power immediately associated with the Lie. The Eternal Power and Divine Nature of our universe's Creator ought to be obvious from natural revelation, but lost sinners have a depraved incapacity for taking natural revelation seriously. Having spurned the knowledge of God in Eden--when man did know God--God has given them them over to what they wanted--which is to NOT know God!

In other words, the Lie is deeply embedded in the souls of Adam's natural offspring.

40 posted on 4/14/02 7:22 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

In Eden .... man fell into pride. In this case, pride cometh before God's CURSE.

For overall housekeeping purposes, I want to take this opportunity to repost a reply I made to WM on the other Genesis 3 Thread.

How Arminian! According to Calvinism as presented here, there is no such thing as a halfhearted effort to seek the Lord -- it is all or nothing, and there is no way Satan can block a conversion, which must irresistibly follow regeneration. (Nor could Satan block regeneration.) Perhaps you mean "fakes conversion" instead of "blocks conversion". (How is that for logical charity, OPie?)

Your're right that the Bible doesn't regard halfhearted seeking as seeking at all. It's because halfhearted seeking is definitely not going anywhere.

But notice again the reason why it is not going anywhere. It's because the whole thing is demonic.

Your comment that I should have said "faked conversion" rather than "blocked conversion" is interesting in that it allows me to point out that a faked conversion is a blocked conversion.

You see, we are actually just talking about what one might call "failed conversions." And the distinction between one failed conversion and another is not really consequential at all, since all failed conversions are blocked conversions.

What I mean is that the element of fakery which blocks all conversions in the unregenerate sinner is the Lie in the soul. Sometimes the unregenerate sinner is conspicously religious. Sometimes he is not. But the problem is still the Lie.

I will add that so long as the Lie is allowed to remain demonically resident in the soul, Satan always can and always does block true faith. He always can and always does block the knowledge of God. The unregenerate sinner doesn't really want to know the True and Living God. He hates Him.

Fully supernatural power must displace the Lie, because the Lie is not merely objective stuff, but fully demonic. This is why 1 Corinthians 2:10-14 points out that the Third Person of the Trinity (the Spirit) has to go ahead of the Second Person (the Truth) when a soul is targeted by God for conversion.

In other words, regeneration precedes conversion. And yes, it always produces conversion. This is the only scenario in which Satan does not, indeed, cannot--block conversion. It's because He cannot block regeneration.

(See also Genesis 3:1-13. The Spirit positioned Himself over the chaos of the materials of Creation before God's Word produced light in the Creation.

Salvation, the new Creation, is all Trinitarian stuff, just as the original Creation was.)

47 posted on 4/15/02 8:28 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Please notice that I said in my previous post that the Lie is demonic. It's not just a spiritually neutral idea. You need to appreciate that. In some way, Satan took over the entire race of Adam's offspring in the Fall.

This is the reason why the whole matter of original sin, with obvious hereditary depravity transmitted down the bloodline of Adam, is so WEIRD.

48 posted on 4/15/02 8:38 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

(Hey, Satan is the "god of this world"--and that's quite awful enough--but he ain't God! The One True God is the One Who decides who is going to be saved. God is the One Who decides to regenerate a sinner or leave him in his sin.)

49 posted on 4/15/02 8:42 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

What the Arminians on this thread need to realize is that Calvinism is merely affirming very clearly that evangelism and doctrinal discussions entail supernatural warfare, not merely intellectual matters.

We see supernatural forces behind the arguments and positions. We specifically notice 2 Timothy 2:26 and following.

The Arminians don't seem to think Satan is all that real, all that powerful in the souls of men. And they do not correctly apprehend the Trinity of God in His work of salvation.

54 posted on 4/15/02 2:53 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to continue with my inputs on this thread (see #7, 18, 40 and 46 for the main points of doctrinal background). In the present post I hope to start developing my explanation of why I said that although I can love Arminians, I can only hate Arminianism.

Let me start off by reaffirming something which I said in #7: The Lie of Eden was a counterfeit gospel. This counterfeit gospel entered God's Creation via a fallen angel. And it triggered God's CURSE against that angel and against the Adamic race.

Now, if we look at Galatians 1:8-9, we see something very interesting in Paul's warning to the Galatians. He says that if anyone, even an angel, should come preaching a counterfeit gospel, let him be accursed.

My point here is that there are Genesis overtones in what Paul is saying in Galatians 1:8-9.

Can you see this? I'll bet you can. If you are unsure of this, go back and read #7. The Lie of Eden really was a counterfeit gospel. It was the ruin of the Adamic race.

Faithful preachers of the True Gospel have to attack the Lie and displace it from the souls of sinners, not stupidly recapitulate the Fall through a reiteration of the Lie!

The above discussion ultimately explains why I hate Arminianism. It really is the Lie of Eden, as I will demonstrate in a series of posts now under development.

You see, topics like Mormonism have taken over this thread. Today's knowledgeable Christians (who do regard Mormonism as non-Christian) would tend to get the impression from reading this thread that Mormonism is the sort of false gospel which Paul is talking about. Okay, but all of the furor over Mormonism is actually a decoy of sorts. It misses the point which I think we need to see in Genesis 3. In my opinion, the real problem with which we need to contend is Arminianism.

If today's Christians were more solid on this point, a lot of the other arguments concerning the various offshoots of true Christianity would suddenly become moot. The real problem with Mormonism is that it is essentially Arminian.

In my subsequent posts, I will make good on my claim that I can prove that Arminianism is just the Lie of Eden, not the gospel. We need to get away from it, not just swap the Lie of Eden for the Lie of Eden and call it conversion. (The post which you are now reading is just a matter of housekeeping for this thread. I'd like for us to get back on topic.)

182 posted on 4/22/02 10:28 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the comment. I think that it is very, very important to notice from Galatians 1:8-9 that erroneous presentations of the gospel are, to one degree or another, just recapitulations of the Fall.

This confuses people for the very reason that the Fall itself was a counterfeit gospel--not to mention the fact that the fallen Adamic race has what amounts to an inborn preference for the counterfeit gospel.

187 posted on 4/22/02 12:48 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

I have not had much time for FR over the last several days, but I thought the Galatians 1:8-9 comment was important food for thought.

Arminianism is not an innocent doctrinal error. (In fact, I don't think there is such a thing.)

Please notice that I am not saying that all Arminians are lost. But if a person is trusting in the distinctive tenets of Arminianism for his salvation, he is not saved at all. (The fact that he may sprinkle the name of Jesus in the confession of his lips means nothing whatsoever.)

My bottom-line point is that an evil tree (bad doctrine) does not bear good fruit (salvation). The evil tree in this case, of course, was the tree of the Fall itself.

191 posted on 4/22/02 1:23 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

But Arminianism definitely is a counterfeit gospel. You just haven't seen this yet.

Arminianism really is the Lie of Eden. (It is a very, very impressive deception!!!)

As I have been saying on this thread, the unregenerate sinner is polluted with a lie in his soul--and, Arminianism aside, that lie is the Lie of Eden.

The Lie of Eden blocks repentance. The Lie of Eden prevents the sinner from taking his Creator seriously. (To see what I mean, see again the first seven verses of Genesis 3.)

And this is what concerns me about Arminianism. It tends to encourage frivolous professionism and to call that frivolous experience saving faith.

Look at the way the Arminians have behaved on these doctrinal threads. It has been terrible.

223 posted on 4/23/02 3:34 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Just for fun, why don't you Arminians try to figure out from the text of Genesis 3 why I would argue that Armininianism is the Lie of Eden?

(I'm just trying to get you fellows to be more thoughtful. I think the exercise may prove to be interesting.)

226 posted on 4/23/02 4:37 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Someone asked:
"How does Arminianism block repentance? How does the Lie of Eden block repentance, for that matter? I thought that God blocked repentance (on the part of the non-elect--and of course, on the part of the elect, it's irresistible, so that's not blocked repentance either)?"

Demonic power operating in the soul blocks repentance. This is explicitly taught in 2 Timothy 2:26f. (The fact that this awful mess is ordained by God, and under God's sovereign control, is another matter in that same passage!)

"I don't see how the doctrines of Arminianism themselves could tend to encourage frivolous professions. Arminianism, at least "classical" Arminianism (the kind Arminius, Watson and Wesley espoused), doesn't espouse "say the sinner's prayer and you're saved--don't go by feelings, just pound your will into submission!" That's more a debased Baptistic view of things (the more Southern Baptist sort, not really Reformed or Fundamental or even Free Will...). But you are somewhat correct--due to the predominance of Arminian churches here in the US, there are probably more ostensibly "Arminian" Christians than Calvinist Christians (not to say that there are not ostensibly "Calvinist" Christians who really aren't saved, either)."

And I will acknowledge that being a professed Calvinist does not equal salvation.

But these are not want I am talking about. Please see my most recent post (#226).

"Doc, when we bring up Servetus and use him as a reason why Calvin was a wicked man, besides the off-base attempts at defending Calvin ("Oh, he actually wanted the sentence commuted! Really"), usually there are intermixed cries that God used him anyway, or to look past his character at what he's saying--in essence, to avoid ad hominem attacks. Please do us, or at least me, the same turn. (Note that I've never said that Calvin was unregenerate, although I definitely am not thrilled with his involvement with Servetus.)"

You are being stubborn by insinuating that Calvin was "wicked" and then turning around and saying that maybe he was regenerate after all.

The problem is not that a regenerate individual cannot sin, but that you are being hypocritical in ways which you have have not even recognized. Calvin's error was that of continuing the Romanist error of church-statism. I will stipulate that this was, in and of itself, a pretty monstrous error. But there is no reason to believe that you would not have made precisely the same mistake if you had lived in 16th Century Europe.

In the final analysis, I am not so much interested in defending Calvin's honor as I am interested in warning you of this hypocritical bias against a pretty good Christian.

And I will say again that you Arminians have behaved badly. The way you guys tried to use the Servetus story, with a dishonest slant, is an example of this--albeit a minor example. (Many of the Arminian posts have been filled with viciously malevolent lies attacking us. It's almost non-stop slander.)

228 posted on 4/23/02 5:04 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Spurgeon is famous for his statement "Calvinism is the gospel in its purest form."

For reasons which should eventually become clearer, I believe that Spurgeon was correct. In the present post, I will simply maintain that Spurgeon's statement was correct. (As I have already indicated, we'll look at the proof later.)

What I want to do in this post is to show you what Spurgeon's statement is actually declaring.

It turns out that there are two different ways to read Spurgeon's statement. There is a soft way to read it, and there is also a decidedly more harsh way to read it. I believe both readings have merit. (See below.)

In the first place, you need to keep in mind that Spurgeon never maintained that an Arminian is surely lost. He actually affirmed that one does not have to be a Calvinist in order to be saved. (I have never met a Calvinistic Baptist who would disagree with Spurgeon about this!)

What is my point in telling you this? It is to point out that Spurgeon's statement to the effect tbat Calvinism is the "purest form" of the gospel is admitting the doctrinally important possibility that an Arminian can be saved in the overall gospel but still be confused concerning some of the doctrinal particulars of the gospel!

How could Spurgeon have realized that an Arminian can still be a true Christian? Well, the Bible nowhere says that a person has to get all of his doctrinal p's and q's straight before he is converted. Spurgeon knew that. Besides, Spurgeon himself was converted to Christ before he became a Calvinist as such. And there is no reason whatsoever to doubt Spurgeon's prior conversion.

On the other hand, it is ominously significant that Spurgeon was not converted to Christ by the preaching of an Arminian theology of gospel conversion.

This is so significant that I want to say it again and go on to explain it. Although Spurgeon did not become a Calvinist per se until a short time after his conversion, he had not been converted by the Arminian position.

Let me explain this by pointing out that Spurgeon was converted in a Primitive Methodist church under the preaching of a lay preacher who did not present the standard invitation of the 19th Century Arminian preachers. No one in that little church told Spurgeon or even implied to him that if he would walk an aisle and make a public confession of Christ and get baptized and join a local church, then these works would surely amount to saving faith.

This is important--especially when we realize that there are Protestant preachers who do teach/imply such things. They were on the scene in Spurgeon's day, and they became even more common in the 20th Century!

The lay preacher whose unctuous presentation of Christ stirred young Spurgeon's soul was not one of these hirelings. The fellow was not just trying to get members for the visible Body of Christ!

Why do I think the pejorative term "hireling" is appropriate for describing a lot of ministers? It's because the Christian ministry is too much of a career for them--a career in which visible success equals visible "converts." This is why the hirelings naturally learn the tricks of gospel huckstering from the likes of the 9th Century heretic Charles Finney.

Sadly, we Calvinists notice that today's "hireling evangelists" use Finney's tricks over and over and over in our day. Most people think this is perfectly okay. But it's not okay. It is a dangerous mess.

Why do I say that? It's because it is a throwback to Romanism. The fact that certain works (e.g. profession of faith and joining a local church) are the necessary fruits of true faith does not give us the right to say that the doing of certain works constitutes true faith. (That is the essential error of Romanism!)

More to the point of our present discussion, we must never imply that every seemingly positive thing which a wickedly, demonically confused sinner might do in response to a sermon is a thing of regeneration. The parable of the tares warns us that this is not the case! The tares are demonic counterfeits in the visible church. They are planted by the Enemy, not by the Spirit of God.

This is why I believe that it is important to affirm that the Spirit of Christ must regenerate unto conversion!

The tares are spiritually dead folks who might very well look like they are alive to God--when, in fact, they are actually Adamic-Satanic idolaters who HATE the God of the Bible. Whatever spirit they have, it ain't the spirit of Christ. And since they are arrogantly presenting themselves in the temple of God as saved when they are not, the spirit of the deception is necessarily an antichristian spirit.

Do we just throw these folks out of our churches? No, if they behave themselves, we leave them alone. Trying to root them out will create more problems than it solves. But we definitely can preach about the problem of the antichristian deception! We can point out that some folks are hypocrites who learn lipservice confessions concerning Jesus and God but who do not know the God of the Bible after all. And we can specifically point out from the parable that one of the specific reasons why the Lord says leave the tares alone is because He already intends to burn them in hell.

Notice from this that the tares scenario is a pretty scary scenario. We are limited in some ways as to what we can do about the tares; however, we certainly can sharpen the message which may have been so sleepy/sloppy as to allow them to be planted in our churches in the first place! We can do our level best to preach a gospel which attacks doctrinal confusion--including the doctrinal confusion of the Lie which facilitates spurious conversions, i.e., produces antichrists in our churches!

(In case you have missed this, let me clearly affirm that a lot of professing Christians don't really believe that Jesus is the Christ, that He is God in the flesh, that God is Triune. They just memorize confessions and hope that's good enough.)

One of the nifty things about this doctrinal powerful approach is that it automatically unmasks a lot of frauds. As a matter of fact, most of the antichrists will eventually get up and leave the church. (See 1 John 4:2.)

By far the best thing about doctrinally profound warnings is that it winds up converting some of the hypocrites! God wakes them up supernaturally for the very first time.

Now, let me summarize a few points about Spurgeon and his position that Calvinism is the "purest form" of the gospel.

You will notice from what I have said already in this post that I believe that Arminian preaching tends to produce spurious conversions. It tends to confuse folks into professions of faith.

This is nothing like what happened to Spurgeon. But he did not realize the significance of this until he thought about what really happens in conversion. And he did not think about that until the Lord taught him the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation!

It is also interesting that when the Spirit of God was pleased to instruct Spurgeon in this doctrinal area, Spurgeon saw the Truth of the Calvinistic position almost immediately. He quickly renounced the Arminian position and never turned back. As far as Spurgeon was concerned, the Truth of the matter was obvious in the Bible. And it explained his own experience beautifully.

Am I saying that a saved but confused Arminian will respond to sound doctrinal instruction as quickly as Spurgeon did? No, I'm not. The Spirit of Christ operated in a pretty spectacular way in Spurgeon. God had big plans for the young man. (Some Christians are not foreordained to the kind of conspicuous, even spectacular ministry which Spurgeon had. They slog along in the confusion of error because God is willing to let them do so.)

In other words, Spurgeon had to abandon the confusion of Arminianism which temporarily adulterated his understanding of the gospel. The Spirit of God was pleased to have Spurgeon get a purer understanding of the ways of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Understandably, Spurgeon even gave God the credit for having opened his eyes to the Truth of Biblical predestination.

But what about the professing Christians who are Arminian in their theology and doggedly determined to remain as Arminians? Well, some of them are regenerate but childishly happy with their (proud!) doctrinal confusion. We Calvinists need to be patient. But we should never be so "patient" (!) as to imply that their Arminian doctrine is surely okay. Heck, it's not okay. A lot of "Arminian Christians" are not even Christians in the first place.

We need to be clear about that. So, let me point out the other, more ominious implication of Spurgeon's statement concerning Calvinism and the gospel (see below).

The issues of salvation and damnation are much bigger than assensus; they are much bigger than one's merely intellectual understanding (which can involve profoundly weird self-deceptions). But inasmuch as the mind is the portal of the soul for the Doctrine of the gospel, I will be blunt in my warning about the importance of getting unconfused! If Calvinism is the gospel in its purest form, then Arminianism is the antichristian deception in its purest form.

This is why I have warned FReepers over and over and over that Arminianism is the Lie of Eden ITSELF.

Look again at what Satan said to Eve. Think about it a while. It's a pretty subtle point. But I'm afraid that I'm correct.

And this would go a long ways toward explaining why so many Arminians have behaved so badly, even repeatedly trying to get Calvinists thrown off FR. We infuriate the more rabid Arminians on FR precisely because we are correct.

Tomorrow I will explain why I say that Arminianism is the Lie of Eden. Please relax enough to be thoughtful rather than only stubbornly adversarial.

348 posted on 4/24/02 1:38 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

You just aren't noticing which is the cart and which is the horse. If you will figure this out, you will get the order straightened out.

1 Corinthians 2:14 definitely teaches that a person who does not even have the Spirit of the Truth will never receive the Truth.

You see, [____] the unregenerate sinner actually hates the God of the Bible. This is why preaching, in and of itself, fixes nothing. Conversion is a supernatural phenomenon. So, puh-leez don't call this foolishness. (See again 1 Corinthians 2:14.)

357 posted on 4/24/02 1:59 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Someone asked:
"If Calvinism is the gospel in its purest form, why did God take so long to bother letting it out? And why do it's practioners have such a long history of failed Christianity in it's application in the world? Probably because it is not."

Actually the Calvinistic position can be found in the writings of Augustine (circa 400 A.D.). And there is evidence that Augustine was by no means the first Christian to understand the Biblical doctrine of predestination.

Even when the Roman Church went into apostasy between Augustine's day and the 16th Century, there were a large number of non-aligned Christians who kept alive Augustine's understanding of the doctrine of God's absolute predestination.

Have predestinarian Christian movements occasionally wandered away from the Truth of God's absolute sovereignty? Of course. The RCC is a good example. Then again, you are a living example of this phenomenon. So, don't blame the doctrine.

361 posted on 4/24/02 2:30 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Someone said:
"You know, maybe Servetus was converted to Christ on the pyre. I am sure that people like Calvin did pray for him."

But I don't think you understood what I meant when I said that Servetus got what he deserved. The fact is, no one deserves mercy from God. We are all brands fit for burning.

Maybe Servetus finally realized that he was getting what a sinner does deserve. Maybe he finally realized that he had lived his entire life as an unregenerate smart-aleck who had never had a real fear of the True and Living God. Maybe he realized that he had been a fool to think his execution as a martyr would be somehow "tolerable," somehow a lovely thing.

Being burned to death can sure jerk the slack out of a fellow, I guess. But as a physician, I would point out that conversions in the final moments of life are not very common.

367 posted on 4/24/02 3:36 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

"Cursed be this 'love' and Cursed be this 'unity' for which the Word of God is put to the Stake."

424 posted on 4/24/02 7:28 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Satan, manifesting himself as the Serpent of Genesis 3, told man a single lie presented in two different forms. He said that man would not die for unbelieving disobedience. He re-stated the lie in a more alluring form when he said that man would achieve godhood by a God-defying determination to sin (i.e., to know the issues of good and evil, by evil experience, for himself).

One of the reasons why we know that we should regard this as a single lie presented in two different forms--other than the obvious parallel between the two statements!--is found in Romans 1:25. That verse literally says "for they exchanged the truth of God for THE lie."

Now, inasmuch as this lie was stated in two different versions, we need to realize that the second version is just designed to be especially seductive. The first statement of the Lie, claiming that man would not die for unbelieving disobedience, is the one on which I would like to focus.

This statement, when we fully appreciate what it is saying, is the one which unmasks Arminianism as a fraud. (Ah, but the whole thing is subtle! See again Genesis 3:1a!)

In Paul’s theology sin can be depicted as the human race’s failure to be what God intended. All have sinned and are losing God’s glory.(Rom.3:23) Sin is more than doing wrong acts: it is the loss of a perfection that God meant the human race to have, a coming short of the highest standard to which he is capable. The full extent of the loss was apparent to those, who like Paul, had seen in Christ the image and glory of God (2Cor.4:6) and who, under the influence of the Spirit, had begun to capture the lost reflection. (2 Cor.3:18) To live in the flesh is the common lot of all humanity, shared by Christ himself, but to live according to the flesh, to set the mind on flesh to do the works of the flesh (Rom8:5-8, Gal.5:16-21) is to fall short of the Glory of God. In no book of the NT is this conception of sin as a failure to attain an appointed destiny more vividly worked out than in Hebrews. The author reminds us that according to Psalm 8 God made the human race a little lower than the angels, but crowned (in His pre-destining counsels) with glory and honor, putting all things in subjection under its feet. The author’s comment is that the human race has not in fact secured this position of pre-eminence, but that Jesus, crowned through His sufferings with glory and honor, has fulfilled the human destiny, and so become the pioneer of salvation, leading the many to the glory, which on their own account they had failed to achieve.(2:5-10) The old covenant is said to have failed because it could not give to men and women that maturity or perfection which comes only through personal access to the inner presence of God.(7:11, 10:1) In Pauline theology, the archetypical sin is the sin of Adam. But under that one term “Adam” he includes 3 related concepts which the theologist would wish to distinguish. He is the primeval human being, the progenitor of the human race, who grasped at equality with God, (Phil 2:6, Gen 3:5) by becoming the arbiter of his own standards of good and evil. Some have presumed that the contrast in the Phillipians passage is not between Christ and Adam but between Christ and Satan but there are two objections to this theory. The first is that the pre-cosmic rebellion and the fall of Satan play little part in the Jewish thinking about the problem of evil and none at all in biblical theology, where Satan is still the enemy of God, but still retains his role as one of the Sons of God charged with the function of public prosecutor in the divine law court. The second objection is that the whole balance of Phil2:5-11 depends on the reversal of Adam’s conduct by the incarnation. Adam, being created in human form, grasped at equality with God: Christ, though He was in the form of God, stooped to accept equality with the human race. Christ cannot be said to reverse the conduct of Satan: it was the human form that He took, not the Satanic. Adam is thus Everyman, the typical human being whose story is constantly re-enacted, as all of us in fact, make it our own. The Hebrews thought of human personality as including that of one’s posterity. In this sense, the whole of humanity was included in the sinful act of their human ancestor .Along with the concept of corporate personality went a fluidity of thought which enabled the Hebrew writer to move freely from the individual as the embodiment of the group to the group as the extension of the individual. In his treatment of Adam, Paul passes quite naturally from one meaning to another. Thus in Romans 7:7-20, he describes in the first person, but in terms reminiscent of Genesis 3, the moral defeat of a divided personality. Just as the serpent took the commandment against eating from the tree of knowledge and twisted it into a temptation which kindled Adam’s latent impulse to disobedience so that he became subject to death, so in Paul’s experience sin had converted the sin against covetousness into a base of operations for a fatal attack on his innocence. The prohibition had put ideas into his head which would otherwise not have occurred to him. The passage might be seen as the autobiography of Adam written by one who has been his own Adam. In Paul’s theology sin can be depicted as the human race’s failure to be what God intended. All have sinned and are losing God’s glory.(Rom.3:23) Sin is more than doing wrong acts: it is the loss of a perfection that God meant the human race to have, a coming short of the highest standard to which he is capable. The full extent of the loss was apparent to those, who like Paul, had seen in Christ the image and glory of God (2Cor.4:6) and who, under the influence of the Spirit, had begun to capture the lost reflection. (2 Cor.3:18) To live in the flesh is the common lot of all humanity, shared by Christ himself, but to live according to the flesh, to set the mind on flesh to do the works of the flesh (Rom8:5-8, Gal.5:16-21) is to fall short of the Glory of God. In no book of the NT is this conception of sin as a failure to attain an appointed destiny more vividly worked out than in Hebrews. The author reminds us that according to Psalm 8 God made the human race a little lower than the angels, but crowned (in His pre-destining counsels) with glory and honor, putting all things in subjection under its feet. The author’s comment is that the human race has not in fact secured this position of pre-eminence, but that Jesus, crowned through His sufferings with glory and honor, has fulfilled the human destiny, and so become the pioneer of salvation, leading the many to the glory, which on their own account they had failed to achieve.(2:5-10) The old covenant is said to have failed because it could not give to men and women that maturity or perfection which comes only through personal access to the inner presence of God.(7:11, 10:1) In Pauline theology, the archetypical sin is the sin of Adam. But under that one term “Adam” he includes 3 related concepts which the theologist would wish to distinguish. He is the primeval human being, the progenitor of the human race, who grasped at equality with God, (Phil 2:6, Gen 3:5) by becoming the arbiter of his own standards of good and evil. Some have presumed that the contrast in the Phillipians passage is not between Christ and Adam but between Christ and Satan but there are two objections to this theory. The first is that the pre-cosmic rebellion and the fall of Satan play little part in the Jewish thinking about the problem of evil and none at all in biblical theology, where Satan is still the enemy of God, but still retains his role as one of the Sons of God charged with the function of public prosecutor in the divine law court. The second objection is that the whole balance of Phil2:5-11 depends on the reversal of Adam’s conduct by the incarnation. Adam, being created in human form, grasped at equality with God: Christ, though He was in the form of God, stooped to accept equality with the human race. Christ cannot be said to reverse the conduct of Satan: it was the human form that He took, not the Satanic. Adam is thus Everyman, the typical human being whose story is constantly re-enacted, as all of us in fact, make it our own. The Hebrews thought of human personality as including that of one’s posterity. In this sense, the whole of humanity was included in the sinful act of their human ancestor .Along with the concept of corporate personality went a fluidity of thought which enabled the Hebrew writer to move freely from the individual as the embodiment of the group to the group as the extension of the individual. In his treatment of Adam, Paul passes quite naturally from one meaning to another. Thus in Romans 7:7-20, he describes in the first person, but in terms reminiscent of Genesis 3, the moral defeat of a divided personality. Just as the serpent took the commandment against eating from the tree of knowledge and twisted it into a temptation which kindled Adam’s latent impulse to disobedience so that he became subject to death, so in Paul’s experience sin had converted the sin against covetousness into a base of operations for a fatal attack on his innocence. The prohibition had put ideas into his head which would otherwise not have occurred to him. The passage might be seen as the autobiography of Adam written by one who has been his own Adam. In Paul’s theology sin can be depicted as the human race’s failure to be what God intended. All have sinned and are losing God’s glory.(Rom.3:23) Sin is more than doing wrong acts: it is the loss of a perfection that God meant the human race to have, a coming short of the highest standard to which he is capable. The full extent of the loss was apparent to those, who like Paul, had seen in Christ the image and glory of God (2Cor.4:6) and who, under the influence of the Spirit, had begun to capture the lost reflection. (2 Cor.3:18) To live in the flesh is the common lot of all humanity, shared by Christ himself, but to live according to the flesh, to set the mind on flesh to do the works of the flesh (Rom8:5-8, Gal.5:16-21) is to fall short of the Glory of God. In no book of the NT is this conception of sin as a failure to attain an appointed destiny more vividly worked out than in Hebrews. The author reminds us that according to Psalm 8 God made the human race a little lower than the angels, but crowned (in His pre-destining counsels) with glory and honor, putting all things in subjection under its feet. The author’s comment is that the human race has not in fact secured this position of pre-eminence, but that Jesus, crowned through His sufferings with glory and honor, has fulfilled the human destiny, and so become the pioneer of salvation, leading the many to the glory, which on their own account they had failed to achieve.(2:5-10) The old covenant is said to have failed because it could not give to men and women that maturity or perfection which comes only through personal access to the inner presence of God.(7:11, 10:1) In Pauline theology, the archetypical sin is the sin of Adam. But under that one term “Adam” he includes 3 related concepts which the theologist would wish to distinguish. He is the primeval human being, the progenitor of the human race, who grasped at equality with God, (Phil 2:6, Gen 3:5) by becoming the arbiter of his own standards of good and evil. Some have presumed that the contrast in the Phillipians passage is not between Christ and Adam but between Christ and Satan but there are two objections to this theory. The first is that the pre-cosmic rebellion and the fall of Satan play little part in the Jewish thinking about the problem of evil and none at all in biblical theology, where Satan is still the enemy of God, but still retains his role as one of the Sons of God charged with the function of public prosecutor in the divine law court. The second objection is that the whole balance of Phil2:5-11 depends on the reversal of Adam’s conduct by the incarnation. Adam, being created in human form, grasped at equality with God: Christ, though He was in the form of God, stooped to accept equality with the human race. Christ cannot be said to reverse the conduct of Satan: it was the human form that He took, not the Satanic. Adam is thus Everyman, the typical human being whose story is constantly re-enacted, as all of us in fact, make it our own. The Hebrews thought of human personality as including that of one’s posterity. In this sense, the whole of humanity was included in the sinful act of their human ancestor .Along with the concept of corporate personality went a fluidity of thought which enabled the Hebrew writer to move freely from the individual as the embodiment of the group to the group as the extension of the individual. In his treatment of Adam, Paul passes quite naturally from one meaning to another. Thus in Romans 7:7-20, he describes in the first person, but in terms reminiscent of Genesis 3, the moral defeat of a divided personality. Just as the serpent took the commandment against eating from the tree of knowledge and twisted it into a temptation which kindled Adam’s latent impulse to disobedience so that he became subject to death, so in Paul’s experience sin had converted the sin against covetousness into a base of operations for a fatal attack on his innocence. The prohibition had put ideas into his head which would otherwise not have occurred to him. The passage might be seen as the autobiography of Adam written by one who has been his own Adam. In Paul’s theology sin can be depicted as the human race’s failure to be what God intended. All have sinned and are losing God’s glory.(Rom.3:23) Sin is more than doing wrong acts: it is the loss of a perfection that God meant the human race to have, a coming short of the highest standard to which he is capable. The full extent of the loss was apparent to those, who like Paul, had seen in Christ the image and glory of God (2Cor.4:6) and who, under the influence of the Spirit, had begun to capture the lost reflection. (2 Cor.3:18) To live in the flesh is the common lot of all humanity, shared by Christ himself, but to live according to the flesh, to set the mind on flesh to do the works of the flesh (Rom8:5-8, Gal.5:16-21) is to fall short of the Glory of God. In no book of the NT is this conception of sin as a failure to attain an appointed destiny more vividly worked out than in Hebrews. The author reminds us that according to Psalm 8 God made the human race a little lower than the angels, but crowned (in His pre-destining counsels) with glory and honor, putting all things in subjection under its feet. The author’s comment is that the human race has not in fact secured this position of pre-eminence, but that Jesus, crowned through His sufferings with glory and honor, has fulfilled the human destiny, and so become the pioneer of salvation, leading the many to the glory, which on their own account they had failed to achieve.(2:5-10) The old covenant is said to have failed because it could not give to men and women that maturity or perfection which comes only through personal access to the inner presence of God.(7:11, 10:1) In Pauline theology, the archetypical sin is the sin of Adam. But under that one term “Adam” he includes 3 related concepts which the theologist would wish to distinguish. He is the primeval human being, the progenitor of the human race, who grasped at equality with God, (Phil 2:6, Gen 3:5) by becoming the arbiter of his own standards of good and evil. Some have presumed that the contrast in the Phillipians passage is not between Christ and Adam but between Christ and Satan but there are two objections to this theory. The first is that the pre-cosmic rebellion and the fall of Satan play little part in the Jewish thinking about the problem of evil and none at all in biblical theology, where Satan is still the enemy of God, but still retains his role as one of the Sons of God charged with the function of public prosecutor in the divine law court. The second objection is that the whole balance of Phil2:5-11 depends on the reversal of Adam’s conduct by the incarnation. Adam, being created in human form, grasped at equality with God: Christ, though He was in the form of God, stooped to accept equality with the human race. Christ cannot be said to reverse the conduct of Satan: it was the human form that He took, not the Satanic. Adam is thus Everyman, the typical human being whose story is constantly re-enacted, as all of us in fact, make it our own. The Hebrews thought of human personality as including that of one’s posterity. In this sense, the whole of humanity was included in the sinful act of their human ancestor .Along with the concept of corporate personality went a fluidity of thought which enabled the Hebrew writer to move freely from the individual as the embodiment of the group to the group as the extension of the individual. In his treatment of Adam, Paul passes quite naturally from one meaning to another. Thus in Romans 7:7-20, he describes in the first person, but in terms reminiscent of Genesis 3, the moral defeat of a divided personality. Just as the serpent took the commandment against eating from the tree of knowledge and twisted it into a temptation which kindled Adam’s latent impulse to disobedience so that he became subject to death, so in Paul’s experience sin had converted the sin against covetousness into a base of operations for a fatal attack on his innocence. The prohibition had put ideas into his head which would otherwise not have occurred to him. The passage might be seen as the autobiography of Adam written by one who has been his own Adam. In Paul’s theology sin can be depicted as the human race’s failure to be what God intended. All have sinned and are losing God’s glory.(Rom.3:23) Sin is more than doing wrong acts: it is the loss of a perfection that God meant the human race to have, a coming short of the highest standard to which he is capable. The full extent of the loss was apparent to those, who like Paul, had seen in Christ the image and glory of God (2Cor.4:6) and who, under the influence of the Spirit, had begun to capture the lost reflection. (2 Cor.3:18) To live in the flesh is the common lot of all humanity, shared by Christ himself, but to live according to the flesh, to set the mind on flesh to do the works of the flesh (Rom8:5-8, Gal.5:16-21) is to fall short of the Glory of God. In no book of the NT is this conception of sin as a failure to attain an appointed destiny more vividly worked out than in Hebrews. The author reminds us that according to Psalm 8 God made the human race a little lower than the angels, but crowned (in His pre-destining counsels) with glory and honor, putting all things in subjection under its feet. The author’s comment is that the human race has not in fact secured this position of pre-eminence, but that Jesus, crowned through His sufferings with glory and honor, has fulfilled the human destiny, and so become the pioneer of salvation, leading the many to the glory, which on their own account they had failed to achieve.(2:5-10) The old covenant is said to have failed because it could not give to men and women that maturity or perfection which comes only through personal access to the inner presence of God.(7:11, 10:1) In Pauline theology, the archetypical sin is the sin of Adam. But under that one term “Adam” he includes 3 related concepts which the theologist would wish to distinguish. He is the primeval human being, the progenitor of the human race, who grasped at equality with God, (Phil 2:6, Gen 3:5) by becoming the arbiter of his own standards of good and evil. Some have presumed that the contrast in the Phillipians passage is not between Christ and Adam but between Christ and Satan but there are two objections to this theory. The first is that the pre-cosmic rebellion and the fall of Satan play little part in the Jewish thinking about the problem of evil and none at all in biblical theology, where Satan is still the enemy of God, but still retains his role as one of the Sons of God charged with the function of public prosecutor in the divine law court. The second objection is that the whole balance of Phil2:5-11 depends on the reversal of Adam’s conduct by the incarnation. Adam, being created in human form, grasped at equality with God: Christ, though He was in the form of God, stooped to accept equality with the human race. Christ cannot be said to reverse the conduct of Satan: it was the human form that He took, not the Satanic. Adam is thus Everyman, the typical human being whose story is constantly re-enacted, as all of us in fact, make it our own. The Hebrews thought of human personality as including that of one’s posterity. In this sense, the whole of humanity was included in the sinful act of their human ancestor .Along with the concept of corporate personality went a fluidity of thought which enabled the Hebrew writer to move freely from the individual as the embodiment of the group to the group as the extension of the individual. In his treatment of Adam, Paul passes quite naturally from one meaning to another. Thus in Romans 7:7-20, he describes in the first person, but in terms reminiscent of Genesis 3, the moral defeat of a divided personality. Just as the serpent took the commandment against eating from the tree of knowledge and twisted it into a temptation which kindled Adam’s latent impulse to disobedience so that he became subject to death, so in Paul’s experience sin had converted the sin against covetousness into a base of operations for a fatal attack on his innocence. The prohibition had put ideas into his head which would otherwise not have occurred to him. The passage might be seen as the autobiography of Adam written by one who has been his own Adam. Reference: New Testament Theology G.B. Caird

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.