So Which is it, Was Adam purposed to Fall or was he purposed for the incarnation of Christ Jesus?

In this we must keep in mind, God changed the names of several in the scriptures. Knowing the circumstances of why He did can help us with this.

So whatta ya think?

Thats good thinking. Sez much.. . .))

C'mon, you can do better than that, can't you?

I say the latter because God wanted "many sons brought unto [His] Glory". . . Paul wrote that.

From that I surmise you believe Adam was created to fail just so Jesus could be born 4 thousand years later to redeem us. Did I get that right or did I leave something out?

))) Patience, Dear One.

preacher777E wrote:
That is very true.The hebrew word for,in the begining (B'resheet)contains the gospel when you break it down.It seems possible that Adam being one with Eve was destroyed with the sin of Eve.What I mean is that she had to be 100% different from him but his love for her may have been the same.In Jer.3:1 it states that if a women is divorced and joins to another it would corrupt the land to take her back, but he (Yeshua) said come back.This is no contradiction.In Num.5 we hear about a cup, to save his bride he had to take on flesh and take the cup meant for us.Could this be the cup he talked about in the garden.Adam was a shadow of Messiah.

Well you are still looking at Adam after the fact, after the fact of his failure that now required a redeemer to cancel out. What if Adam had not failed? We must remember God said multiply, replenish the earth. What did God have in mind if not a creation filled and perfected in Him? Perfection requires divinity. Certainly He didn't want it whereby procreation would be forever tempted; hindered/badgered by the enemy of God that sought to destroy what God created; to sever it so completely from God to place it in the same damnable condition he was in. Certainly it could never have been where the sinless and the sinful could exist together, a mixer of sinless ones mixed in with sinful ones. Sorry that does not compute. There had to be a conclusion in God for Adam had he not transgressed. What we can see from scripture is not speculative but supportive that Adam was to be what Jesus became, i.e., a Divine-Human representative in the Godhead. Of course we know in order for that to happen Adam would have to become divine perfection, again, as Jesus, in His flesh, became, a forever Glorified body.

The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.

The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.

God doesn't have a plan B. If that's the case, plan A was a miserable failure, which means God is far less than perfect. God forbid that any should suggest such!

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

The subject of this thread appears to be one of the many age-old arguments.

As with many of the others(age-old arguments)this one to is connected and related to various other doctrines.

I believe the reason for such connection is due to the Truth that none would argue, namely this, "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23:13)

Yet men have and do attempt to bring Him down to their level, Psa 50:21-23 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God.

May we truly meditate upon His Word and think upon The Most High Who fills Heaven and earth.

Consider what He is saying here. Do we know this God? Oh! that we'd acquaint ourselves with Him, and not some image we've formed in our own minds that we make into God and present such to others.

If I'm correct, I think the subject of this thread is the argument between two terms.

From Elwell Evangelical Dictionary

The term "supralapsarianism" comes from the Latin words supra and lapsus; the decree of predestination was considered to be "above" (supra) or logically "before" the decree concerning the fall (lapsus), while the infralapsarians viewed it as "below" (infra) or logically "after" the decree concerning the fall. The contrast of the two views is evident from the following summaries.

The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on this.

H. Bavinck has this to say, "Supralapsarianism undoubtedly has in its favor the fact that it refrains from every attempt to justify God, and that both with respect to reprobation and with respect to election it rests in God's sovereign, incomprehensible, yet wise and holy good pleasure."

He further states,"Now Reformed theologians all agree that the entrance of sin and punishment was willed and determined by God. It is perfectly true that words like “permission” and “foreknowledge” do not solve anything. The difficulty remains the same, and the same questions arise; viz., why, if God foreknew everything, did he create man fallible, and why did he not prevent the fall? Why did he allow all men to fall in Adam? Why does he not grant to all men faith and the blessing of hearing the Gospel? In brief, if God foreknows and permits something, he does this either “willingly” or “unwillingly.” The latter is impossible. Accordingly. only the former remains: God's permission is an “efficacious permission,” an act of his will. Nor should it be supposed that the idea of permission is of any force or value over against the charge that God is the Author of sin; for he who permits or allows someone to sin and to perish in his sin although he was able to prevent him from sinning is just as guilty as he who incites someone to sin. On the other hand, however, all agree that although sin is not “excluded” from the will of God it is, nevertheless, “contrary” to his will; that it is not merely a means to the final goal, but a disturbance in God's creation; and that Adam's fall was not a step ahead but a fall in the real sense of the word. It is also a fact that admits of no doubt that, however much logical reasoning may demur, no one is able to suggest other and better words than “permission, foreknowledge, preterition, dereliction,” etc."

Bavinck's concluding remarks, "Neither the supra- nor the infralapsarian view of predestination is able to do full justice to the truth of Scripture, and to satisfy our theological thinking. The true element in supralapsarianism is: that it emphasizes the unity of the divine decree and the fact that God had one final aim in view, that sin's entrance into the universe was not something unexpected and unlooked for by God but that he willed sin in a certain sense, and that the work of creation was immediately adapted to God's redemptive activity so that even before the fall, i.e., in the creation of Adam, Christ's coming was definitely fixed. And the true element in infralapsarianism is: that the decrees manifest not only a unity but also a diversity (with a view to their several objects), that these decrees reveal not only a teleological but also a causal order, that creation and fall cannot merely be regarded as means to an end, and that sin should be regarded not as an element of progress but rather as an element of disturbance in the universe so that in and by itself it cannot have been willed by God."

Some of the names of men who fall on one side or the other are:

Infralapsarianism

John Calvin
John Owen
Thomas Watson
Matthew Henry
George Whitefield
Jonathan Edwards
C.H. Spurgeon
Charles Hodge
Thornwell
William G.T. Shedd
L. Boettner
Anthony Hoekema
Robert Lewis Dabney
B.B. Warfield
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Scott Hill
Jason Robertson
R.C. Sproul
John Piper

Supralapsarianism

Beza
John Gill
Abraham Kuyper
Herman Hoeksema
A. W. Pink
Cornelius Van Til
Gordon Clark
Louis Berkhof
Karl Barth
Robert Reymond

The above names are just a few of the many which could be listed.

There is also the sublapsarianism view and also what is known as Amyraldism.

Under the Amyraldism view would be:

Amyraldism

Richard Baxter
John Bunyan
Timothy Dwight
A. H. Strong
Henry Thiessen
J.C. Ryle
Lewis Sperry Chafer
R.T. Kendall

These studies can be and are mentally exhausting.

Therefore I will stop here.

If any are interested they may do further study on their own.

As for me, I am content knowing Him and His absolute sovereignty, and will serve The LORD God Who is omnipotent and reigneth.

Adam was purposed to bring pleasure to His Creator, as a son was to any Father.[in human terms] In the creation of Adam, made after the image of God himself, and possessing the attributes of the Father, Adam was given a will, and a conscience. God has a will, in the affairs on the Earth, and His conscience is part of his character, which we call Holy.

My answer is neither. Adam was not purposed to fall; It was simply a fruit of a decision he made, through his very own volition, to act as he saw fit. The angels possessed this very essence also, as some chose to act as they desired. We call these acts sin. It is willfulness outside of the will of God. Without a will, you are not a personality, and technically do not have a conscience. You are not a person, or a personality.

Adam was therefore not purposed to usher in the Redeemer either. It was God's purpose to redeem Adam, not through the creation of Adam, but an attribute of God that we know as Love, or compassion, for the weakness, and eternal trouble that his beloved creation had got himself into.

God sits in the front of the room, and at the back of the room, at the same time. In his economy, we live before him even now, in New Jerusalem. He is the beginning, and the end; the Alpha and Omega; the first and the last. The Bible speaks of the Lamb that was slain, before the foundations of the Earth. Jesus, laid his life down, before there was Adam.

So Adam was not created to manifest the Messiah, through His sin, and God's following mercies. It was the plan before all things, stemming from God's character, to act on behalf of him, and his offspring, after making a terrible mistake, all on his own. God foresaw Adam's bite into eternal death.

For God so loved the World, that He gave. He gave. It's that simple. The wheels of the incarnation were spinning long before in eternities past, before Adam fell. Adam's choice. God loved. Jesus came for this.

"Did George W. Bush invade Iraq because he liked boxing, and enjoyed a healthy fight, or was it because he has seen too many John Wayne movies?"

This is called a straw man, a term that Sermonindex folks are well aware of, as they are inundated with this kind of logic. It means basing your opinions and statements upon a faulty assumption, and then comparing that assumption with your ideas to form a division that may appear to qualify an empirical judgement. [empirical means the logical process of "if this is so, therefore this stands to reason."]
'Purposed to fall"

In your case, your inquisitive assumptions are both faulty, and without merit, so that whatever is derived upon either logic would bolster your perceived enigma unto the negative. It is Questioning one untruth in an either or process to accept another untruth. In one sense, it is not worthy of responding to, for this reason alone. I question whether your inquisition is authentic, and not contrived for reasons of controversy or the "uncaused cause"...ergo; the enigma.

If Adam was purposed to fall, then was the human race purposed to fall. This means that my God designed much of humanity to boil in sulphur throughout Eternities, as His will. You have my God mixed up with another of his creations, that became pure evil. The first leg of your straw man; to me; a little blasphemous. Jesus suffered, after he left his throne in pure love, to bleed and be tortured to rescue Adam. It was not His purpose for Adam to fall, but to live, as an object of His affections. He adored Adam, and redeemed him, at great cost to Himself....the death and Sacrifice of His Son, Yahweh Yeshua!

"Purposed for the incarnation"
This has similar implications.

The incarnation was arrived at before the foundation of the world, when Jesus was slain. Adams purpose was that God desired a son, and children, that He could pour Himself into, and enjoy. God loves, and he loved Adam. He saw that all of Creation was "GOOD"

Jesus was "incarnated" to be Crucified, and overcome Death, not for reasons of Adams existence. "For this reason was the Son of Man manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil!" Jesus came to rescue Adam, and his children, from a fate to horrible to think. We were helpless.

Adam was not purposed "for the incarnation". He was simply bound and without hope, in the midst of his life, and driven away in despair from Eden. The "incarnation" was not founded on the fact that Adam existed, or was created, but in order to Redeem Adam, the Lord Yahweh had to become an Adam...of the race of men. "Lo, a body has thou prepared for Me!"[it is written in the BOOK!"]

Adam was purposed to live, and be, in the fellowship of His Creator. Jesus manifested Himself to bring mercies, and restoration, in spite of Adam's apparent hopeless state; to overcome Death, and the grave...which are, by the way, Eternal places.

Janus was an early name of Satan within the Babylonian religions. He was depicted as a two faced being, with only one head. This is what your straw man reminds me of. Two lies opposing the other to prove one or the other as a truth.

"Has God Said?"............

Why not believe this instead of accusing God of creating people with no hope of redemption just so He can send them to hell, when that is against His nature of Love.

Amen! Bro rbanks! A pleasure for me to read all you wrote.

rbanks wrote:

Josef_Urban wrote:

The devil messed that up by his solicitations to Eve.

God doesn't have a plan B. If that's the case, plan A was a miserable failure, which means God is far less than perfect. God forbid that any should suggest such!

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Why is it so hard to believe that God has given His creation a free will to obey or disobey?

Why do some have to think, that if God gave his creation a free will and then planned redemption because of knowing man’s failure, then that is accusing God of making a mistake?

Why can’t we just believe that within God’s sovereignty He gave man a free will to choose to love Him and obey Him?

Why is it so hard to believe that God Gave Lucifer (an archangel) so much power and freedom that He got proud and because God gave Him freedom He abused it to try and get praised for himself?

Why is it so hard to believe that in God’s sovereignty He allowed it to happen and therefore created man a little lower than the angels to defeat Satan?

So creating man lower than the angels, God wanted man to overcome the devil and rid the world of evil. God being all knowing, He knew the risk of giving man free will and prepared a head of time for redemption. He kept man from eating of the tree of Life after he sinned, so that he would not be glorified in a sinful state but could be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and still overcome the devil.

The overcomers in Christ shall inherit all things and have a glorified body like the angels in the resurrection. Praise God!

Why not believe this instead of accusing God of creating people with no hope of redemption just so He can send them to hell, when that is against His nature of Love.

Blessings to all!

Where is God's grace violated and why call the above, man's reasoning anymore than what you would yours, except you have a bias. I wrote the Bible is supportive of God intending for Adam to be HIS representative of man, as He intended man to be. Adam failed, he did not achieve God's purpose, i.e., Throne-ship in the Godhead. God planned for such a failure. Jesus, the second Adam, now makes it possible.
How does that go against the Grace of God. It is a statement of fact as it can be seen from scriptures. Please explain.

This is not arguable:

The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father.

Now what would have happened had Adam been obedient?

With Jesus, the incarnation was there at His birth/conception, to be tried and tested in a man. In the case with Adam, who was created and not begotten, hence created without divinity in him, had he eaten of the tree of Life first would have had the Nature of the Father [Divinity] deposited in him, to become the same as what Jesus possessed, "begottenhood". Quite possibly Adam may even have had to experience a 'thirty years of silence' time period before putting to prison forever the enemy of God and man. We can say without, error that both men were given to learn the Character of the Father before expressing Him in power and might.
Keeping in mind, Jesus had His graduation whereby He had completed all the testings of the Father, Oswald Chambers has it that by a series of moral choices Adam would have had his own graduation day; his own Transfiguration.

So what is the difference here is, had Adam not transgressed redemption would not have been necessary. Quite possibly even his name would have been changed to "Emanuel, God with us" who has all authority both in all of Heaven and Earth.

This is what Jesus came to earth to accomplish. However, before He could get God's program back on track, He had to first redeem man. Those in Him are His "new creation." But either way you look at it, Him being incarnated into Adam or that of a baby birthed by a virgin in a stable, Jesus still had to come, to step into the scene that Satan be defeated and for man to progress to Joint-heir-ship in the Godhead. the man Jesus being the "first of first fruits".

tjservant wrote:
Those with “Calvinist” inquiries may wish to start new threads dealing with their particular questions so as to not detract from the subject of this thread and catch the eyes of those able and willing to answer.

I have only recently begun to study Cal/Ref doctrine. I will add if I can, but will mostly leave it to those much wiser than myself.

Grace and peace to all

Thanks tjservant. I had hoped this wouldn't get off on Cal-Ref vs anything else, tangent. I am after objectivity in this that the scriptures might be examined without biasness entering in.

This kind of thinking is totally wrong.

Jesus was "incarnated" to be Crucified, and overcome Death, not for reasons of Adams existence. "For this reason was the Son of Man manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil!" Jesus came to rescue Adam, and his "children, from a fate to horrible to think. We were helpless.

Part of what Jesus did by coming to earth was to set the captives free. The captives also included the righteous dead who were in paradise. Paradise, the "abode of the righteous dead", "Abraham's bossom", was NOT a place of torment. If a 'thinker' of the scriptures gets this part wrong, much of all else in his thinking will also be wrong.

Since you have quoted me, a little out of context, I am presenting you again with my entire quote.

Brothertom wrote:

"Did George W. Bush invade Iraq because he liked boxing, and enjoyed a healthy fight, or was it because he has seen too many John Wayne movies?"

This is called a straw man, a term that Sermonindex folks are well aware of, as they are inundated with this kind of logic. It means basing your opinions and statements upon a faulty assumption, and then comparing that assumption with your ideas to form a division that may appear to qualify an empirical judgement. [empirical means the logical process of "if this is so, therefore this stands to reason."]
'Purposed to fall"

In your case, your inquisitive assumptions are both faulty, and without merit, so that whatever is derived upon either logic would bolster your perceived enigma unto the negative. It is Questioning one untruth in an either or process to accept another untruth. In one sense, it is not worthy of responding to, for this reason alone. I question whether your inquisition is authentic, and not contrived for reasons of controversy or the "uncaused cause"...ergo; the enigma.

If Adam was purposed to fall, then was the human race purposed to fall. This means that my God designed much of humanity to boil in sulphur throughout Eternities, as His will. You have my God mixed up with another of his creations, that became pure evil. The first leg of your straw man; to me; a little blasphemous. Jesus suffered, after he left his throne in pure love, to bleed and be tortured to rescue Adam. It was not His purpose for Adam to fall, but to live, as an object of His affections. He adored Adam, and redeemed him, at great cost to Himself....the death and Sacrifice of His Son, Yahweh Yeshua!

"Purposed for the incarnation"
This has similar implications.

The incarnation was arrived at before the foundation of the world, when Jesus was slain. Adams purpose was that God desired a son, and children, that He could pour Himself into, and enjoy. God loves, and he loved Adam. He saw that all of Creation was "GOOD"
edit.
[ This is the part that you have stated that was all wrong, with wrong thinking.]

"Jesus was "incarnated" to be Crucified, and overcome Death, not for reasons of Adams existence. "For this reason was the Son of Man manifested, that He might destroy the works of the Devil!" Jesus came to rescue Adam, and his children, from a fate to horrible to think. We were helpless. " [here it is in context.] [I'll let the forum debate what is sound, or wrong thinking....Tom.]....edited to clarify quote, 30 minutes after post...

Adam was not purposed "for the incarnation". He was simply bound and without hope, in the midst of his life, and driven away in despair from Eden. The "incarnation" was not founded on the fact that Adam existed, or was created, but in order to Redeem Adam, the Lord Yahweh had to become an Adam...of the race of men. "Lo, a body has thou prepared for Me!"[it is written in the BOOK!"]

Adam was purposed to live, and be, in the fellowship of His Creator. Jesus manifested Himself to bring mercies, and restoration, in spite of Adam's apparent hopeless state; to overcome Death, and the grave...which are, by the way, Eternal places.

Janus was an early name of Satan within the Babylonian religions. He was depicted as a two faced being, with only one head. This is what your straw man reminds me of. Two lies opposing the other to prove one or the other as a truth.

"Has God Said?"............

The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father.

Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born as the incarnate Son of God, being God in the flesh?

Out of context or in context it is still poor reasoning, given the scriptures.

I can only hope that one may read my posts and conclude there is more to our redemption and life established IN the grace of God than receiving a paid up fire insurance policy.

Creation is more than that. . . much more.

g

Josef_Urban wrote:

The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father.

Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born as the incarnate Son of God, being God in the flesh?

Absolutely! Now my question to you: Are you born again?

Ormley wrote:

"The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father."

Josef-Servant wrote;
"Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born as the incarnate Son of God, being God in the flesh?'

It is evident in your statement above, that you believe that Jesus of Nazareth,[b]Achieved[/b] divinity by obedience to the Father.

Could you explain where you derived this insight?

Brothertom wrote:
Ormley wrote:

"The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father."

Josef-Servant wrote;
"Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born as the incarnate Son of God, being God in the flesh?'

It is evident in your statement above, that you believe that Jesus of Nazareth,[b]Achieved[/b] divinity by obedience to the Father.

Could you explain where you derived this insight?

The scriptures that state, He learned obedience . . ." Obedience to what if not the Father? What was it He had to learn if not the Character of His Father much like Adam was purposed to do? In our life we know that a child, being born with the nature of its father is given to learn his character; son-ship. "Unto us a child is born, a son given". Why was that necessary if Jesus was already divine in His humanity? It was His Humanity that required the test to become what God purposed, i.e., Humankind transfigured to Glory.

It was this that was purposed for Adam.

May I also ask this question of you: Are you born again?

PaulWest wrote:
Ormly said:

Adam failed, he did not achieve God's purpose, i.e., Throne-ship in the Godhead.

"May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears..." (Acts 17:19-20)

Wherein lies the strangeness? Oh, I don't deny it is new, though it shouldn't be. I have violated nothing from scripture unless you have a biased perspective of it taught you by the many years of the teaching of a single dimensioned gospel.

Ask some questions of Paul. How come he places great emphasis on 'son-ship, joint-heir-ship and throne-ship upon his listeners who are not just 'saved' folk? He speaks to the "saints AND to the faithful in Christ.(Eph.1:1,kjv) He makes distinctions most don't ever make when taking God's work to themselves, presumptuously believing they have it all when they repeat the sinners prayer. No my brother, there is more that led Paul to declare, "Eye hasn't seen nor ear heard, nor has entered into the heart of man, what God has for those that love Him". Do you love God? Why of course you do. Every 'Christian' will admit that while never considering what it really means.
Kindly read all I have posted and not cherry pick to find fault. It isn't a strange doctrine I speak. It is however, a more complete one that should offend no one who knows the scriptures to search out for themselves. It should bring joy to the one who longs for more completeness in Christ while still living in this world of testing.

Ormley wrote:

"The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father."

Josef-Servant wrote;
"Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born as the incarnate Son of God, being God in the flesh?'

It is evident in your statement above, that you believe that Jesus of Nazareth,[b]Achieved[/b] divinity by obedience to the Father.

Could you explain where you derived this insight?

It was this that was purposed for Adam.

May I also ask this question of you: Are you born again?

My response to you, Ormly:

Ormly then replied:
"Why was that necessary if Jesus was already Divine, in His humanity. ?...........

In simple strait talk, you do not believe that Jesus was divine, or God in the Flesh. You have stated this clearly. You somewhere believed that Jesus ACHIEVED DIVINITY through obedience to his father. When you are confronted, you will not respond according to the Word, or directly, but divert argument to your "straw men", or accusations of infidelity against your confronters. You have no substance to your claims, and will not reveal the source of these ideas.[they are NOT Christian ideas, Ormly.]

Well Ormly, You see, that Jesus was the Son of Man, as well as the Son of God.

"All things were made by him, and without him , was not anything made that was made."

"He was in the World, [b]and the World was made by him, and the World knew him not!"[/b]

John chapter one.

Who created all things, Ormly?.."who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be EQUAL with God, and made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the FORM of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."...Philippians, Ch:2

These doctrines of "attainment" by our Lord Jesus are prevalent in Mormonism, Transcendental Hinduism [ to become an ascended master, as Jesus attained..], Buddhism, and Taoism....They all teach that the path to Nirvana, was and is the same that Jesus walked, all with a twist or two.

You have quickly exposed yourself as one who has believed at least a form of these damnable heresies. This is not good, Ormly. Not that we don't invite seekers of God, or are rejecting you because of your unchristian doctrines, but because they might destroy you in the end, if you do not change, or repent.

To know that the Eternal One became a man, and as God, laid his life down, to redeem, is a fundamental and foundational reality for the Believer. You, as per your posts, do not believe this, in spite of your intricate designs to avoid admitting it, or to divert the issues. Your questions , and the name of your posts, are spurious in nature..in that both reflect the substance of your heresy, and, I believe, were purposed to create doubt. God is a good God, Ormly, and desires that NONE should perish. This is why Jesus came; not because Adam was created, but to rescue him, and his Hell bound race. In doing so, He soundly defeated Death, and his cohort, Satan!

Jesus left His Throne as God almighty, to become a man. He ascended back to that Throne, as God almighty, having endured the sacrifice, and the suffering of death, as He tasted death for all mankind. It had to be so. This is the root of all mercies, and God's Love, Ormly.

Please stop diverting this issue. Jesus is, was, and will be God Almighty. He is the Great "I AM." He has never attained Divinity. He is Divinity, the alpha and omega. You may not believe this, but this is the Heart of Faith you are disputing, and I believe that it is impossible to know God, and obtain Salvation without this faith I speak of.

I hope you see this, for your sake. My respects, Tom

"I hope you see this, for your sake. My respects, Tom"

I asked if you were born again. If you answered perhaps I just missed in all you stated above. Think you can give a simple yes or no?

RE: Tom,

Though I believe most all you say, you nevertheless say enough that would confuse anyone trying to connect the dots.

God can't die, ergo, God wasn't on the cross. Don't call that comment heretical. It's not arguable. Consider you can't make distinctions running with your present theology while dismissing anything that might cause you to think.

So quit, RIGHT NOW, with the accusations. I am a Christian and I have no axe to grind. If you want to discuss using the scriptures, that's find. You might begin by citing relevant ones instead of those you have posted, that aren't. . . All quoting the writers speaking of Jesus AFTER the fact of the cross and glorification. Again, make better distinctions.

Keep in mind, this is all about God's original intention for Adam.

Why is it Tom, that Jesus needed to obey His Father? Answer that, please.

roaringlamb wrote:

The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father.

This statement alone should cause everyone in this discussion to question any further points you have to make.

Christ did not achieve divinity, He was always divine, always God.

Fully God, and fully man.

I do hope you understand that this belief it seems you are putting forth is close to, if not heretical as you are seemingly denying the deity of Christ in His pre-incarnate state.

You are treading on dangerous grounds brother, please be careful.

May I suggest taking a dep breath and re-read my posts.

Don't cherry pick and make it say what is not being said.

roaringlamb wrote:
Brother I need not read the rest of your posts when you say things like, "God was not on the cross".

That is heretical, and is one of the most critical points in our redemption, that God being in the form of man did indeed die in the place of sinners, but was raised again.

In your view, and answer plainly, was and is Christ God?

I have already answered that. Now, I have asked others here and have received no reply. I will ask you: Are you born again? Can you 'plainly' answer that?

Logic wrote:
[quoteOrmly wrote:
This is not arguable:

The man Jesus, became the first man to achieve divinity. He did so by obedience to His Father.

"Behold, I make all things new" . . NOT I make new all things. In other words, Jesus doesn't make the old things new. "Adam" is not a man made over but a totally new man. No rescue in this.

Its not that difficult that understanding the word 'new' should be considered to have a different meaning in this.

I like this from Chambers that has helped me a great deal and has answered much of my curiosity in all this. Not all, but much.

[b]"God did not create Adam holy, He created him innocent, without self-consciousness (as we understand the word) before God; the one thing Adam was conscious of was God and only of himself in relation to the Being Whose commands he was to fulfill; the main trend of his spirit was towards God. Adam was intended by God to take part in his own development by a series of moral choices whereby he would transform innocence into holiness. Adam failed to do this, Jesus Christ came on the same platform as Adam and did not fail. Supposing Adam had transformed the natural life into the spiritual by obedience, what would have happened? Transfiguration; he would have “spiritualised” the natural life and made it all that God wanted it to be. The natural life is neither good nor bad, moral nor immoral; it is the principle within that makes it good or bad, moral or immoral"

"“And the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40 rv). The innocence of Jesus was not the innocence of a babe born into our order of things, it was the innocence of Adam as God created him, the innocence of an untried possibility of holiness. Innocence is never safe, it is simply full of possibility. The holiness of God is absolute, not progressive; that is, it knows no development by antagonism. Man’s holiness must be progressive. The holiness of Jesus developed through antagonism because He revealed what a holy man should be.
Our Lord transformed innocence into holiness by a series of moral choices. Satan tempted Him along this line: “Do God’s will according to Your own understanding; don’t sacrifice the life of nature to the will of God.” Jesus made invariably one answer—“For I am come down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me”† (John 6:38).

"How are we going to have the innocence that Jesus had? In one way only, by being born again from above. “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:7)

"We can be brought into a state of pristine childlike innocence before God by the regenerating work of His grace. God does something infinitely grander than give a man a new start: He re-makes him from the inside. We have the power, because we have received it, to transform the natural into the spiritual even as Jesus did, because the life generated into us is His own life."[/b]

Chambers, O. (1996, c1943). Bringing sons into glory : Studies in the life of our Lord. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.

Logic wrote:

Ormly wrote:
Ormly wrote:
So Which is it, Was Adam purposed to Fall or was he purposed for the incarnation of Christ Jesus

The sole purpose of Adam was to glorify God in worship.
The only reason for the incarnation of Christ was because God knew that Adam would fall and HE made emends for that by His Son.

That must mean God is an egomaniac and nothing more. . . .I don't think so. . . . totally [il] 'logical'.

whyme wrote:
Ormly, in John 12:41, the Holy Spirit reports that Isaiah saw Jesus on His throne in the vision reported in Isaiah 6:3. Since Isaiah's vision was of a fact at that time (as evidenced by the call of Isaiah to go forth) please reconcile your view with Scripture.

[b]We must remember that when Isaiah saw Him, "high and lifted up". Yes. He saw this: "And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Isaiah 6:3 (KJV)

This speaks of the glorified Son of God-Son of man, after the resurrection.

Also, Emannuel is name given to Christ before his birth. Have they changed the meaning of that word?

We must remember Jesus, the human, the Son of God did not exist accept in the plan or Mind of God before His birth. Up until then the three that bore record in Heaven was the Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost. The Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us to demonstrate the 'way of the cross' as the way of our new life in Him is to be walked out and then go to the cross to make the same power and love He lived by to be our enablement, to do what He did to accomplish what He accomplished and more if God's will. He, the Word, then returned to Heaven in a glorified human body as the fulfilled Son of God-Son of man.[/b].

Hope that helps.

Logic wrote:
I want to add to something I said earlier.

Jesus was "Perfected", "Completed" [b]as a perfect human[/b] through obedience to His Father.
To to become divine.

[b]Heb 10:14[/b] [color=990000]by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified[/color]

After Christ was deemed a "perfect Man" through His sufferings & obedience to His Father, He then "perfected us" who are set apart by/in/through/according to faith with repentance.

After Christ is deem a perfect man, we are deem perfect men.

Deemed, but to be proven, just like Jesus, eh? . .)) Think about it . .in our actuality it comes together like that, doesn't it? I don't believe your life is any different than mine in that regard. BTW, you are born again, aren't you?

Nice pun :-P

God knows that sole worship of Him is the best thing for the benefit of man.
God knows that if man was autonomous it would be the end of him, as we all know from experience.

If God was an true egomaniac He would be selfish and self-centered, but the contrary, His thoughts are toward and His intentions are sacrificially for our benefit.

That doesn't mesh with your other remark.

[b]Can we return to the OP, now?[/b]

Ormly wrote:

RE: Tom,

Though I believe most all you say, you nevertheless say enough that would confuse anyone trying to connect the dots.

God can't die, ergo, God wasn't on the cross. Don't call that comment heretical. It's not arguable. Consider you can't make distinctions running with your present theology while dismissing anything that might cause you to think.

So quit, RIGHT NOW, with the accusations. I am a Christian and I have no axe to grind. If you want to discuss using the scriptures, that's find. You might begin by citing relevant ones instead of those you have posted, that aren't. . . All quoting the writers speaking of Jesus AFTER the fact of the cross and glorification. Again, make better distinctions.

Keep in mind, this is all about God's original intention for Adam.

Why is it Tom, that Jesus needed to obey His Father? Answer that, please.

Answer: Jesus was the Son of God, and the Son of man. To be the Son of Man, He also had to overcome by Faith. ....... Divide and conquer? I think not. Jesus said, "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they grind them, and vomit them back at your feet."

This is that. I am not saying you are a swine. But the principle is there. In the face of reason, and much compassion and patience, you adamantly defy all careful truth streaming your way, and gnash , and grind, and smugly assert your right to disown the Bible as our only compass, and banner of fellowship. To answer your question, yes, I am born from above, as I was baptized in the Holy Spirit poured out within me, in the name of Jesus, and by Him.

But , Oh...that would make Him God, wouldn't it?

My accusations will be kept for bigger fish, if you don't mind. The brethren and sisters here have exposed enough for me, to assure me that you are an unbeliever, and you may be a God hater; I hope not.

I am taking your advice, and quitting, right now. I hope you still have a conscience left, that can hear truth when He comes to you. Thank you for your post and thread though. This has worked out unto the glory of God, as those approved of God have been manifest to stand, and I have been proud to witness the patience shown you, in spite of yourself. Jesus is Lord, just as he appeared to Abraham! Tom

If you want to discuss using the scriptures, that's find. You might begin by citing relevant ones instead of those you have posted, that aren't. . . All quoting the writers speaking of Jesus AFTER the fact of the cross and glorification. Again, make better distinctions.

How's this:

[i][b]Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.[/b][/i]

Dear sermonindex brethren,

this Ormly fellow is deceived and teaching damnable doctrine. Let us pray for him that his eyes be opened. I would admonish everyone to take serious caution when dealing with him and to seriously disregard any additional "insights" and "revelations" he has into the Scriptures on any subject, for a blind man can't see anything. He is propagating strange doctrine and if so wrong about such fundamental issues, no doubt other things must be off too, for if the foundations be destroyed, neither can the house stand.

To deny that the Lord Jesus was ALWAYS divine, and to say that He wasn't God in the flesh when he was hanged upon that old Cross when that blessed Emmanuel became a curse in our stead, is to deny the Gospel. For if He wasn't fully divine, His blood was no better than the blood of any other man, or bull, or goat. No, Adam could not "attain" divinity and be the Savior of the world, and Jesus Christ was the Word as God who took on flesh, fully God yet fully man, who from eternity past was predestined to redeem fallen man in the fullness of time.

Josef_Urban wrote:

If you want to discuss using the scriptures, that's find. You might begin by citing relevant ones instead of those you have posted, that aren't. . . All quoting the writers speaking of Jesus AFTER the fact of the cross and glorification. Again, make better distinctions.

How's this:

[i][b]Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.[/b][/i]

I already quoted that one. Pay attention. "Thou shalt call His Name Emanuel . .." Remember?

Dear sermonindex brethren,

this Ormly fellow is deceived and teaching damnable doctrine. Let us pray for him that his eyes be opened. I would admonish everyone to take serious caution when dealing with him and to seriously disregard any additional "insights" and "revelations" he has into the Scriptures on any subject, for a blind man can't see anything. He is propagating strange doctrine and if so wrong about such fundamental issues, no doubt other things must be off too, for if the foundations be destroyed, neither can the house stand.

To deny that the Lord Jesus was ALWAYS divine,

I didn't say that either. I didn't deny He wasn't always divine. I qualified it. I made distinctions. You aren't reading, or don't want to.

and to say that He wasn't God in the flesh when he was hanged upon that old Cross when that blessed Emmanuel became a curse in our stead, is to deny the Gospel. For if He wasn't fully divine, His blood was no better than the blood of any other man, or bull, or goat. No, Adam could not "attain" divinity and be the Savior of the world, and Jesus Christ was the Word as God who took on flesh, fully God yet fully man, who from eternity past was predestined to redeem fallen man in the fullness of time.

What is strange is because you aren't reading me correctly and yet accuse.

You say the blood of Jesus needed to be divine for man to be forgiven. That isn't so. Only sinless blood was needed. Jesus was sinless. He qualified. The only way He could be sinless was to first start out that way and then protect His sinlessness. Since creation was over, only being born of the Father/Holy Ghost could accomplish His beginnings. . . Normal man entering the world from the outside to redeem fallen mankind for the Father. Doesn't that also speak of the new birth of a believer? Isn't that what the newborn are given to be, to protect and to do?
Get that part correct first then perhaps a few other things may fall into place. Get understanding.

Whose next . . .

[b]

rbanks wrote:
I don’t know Ormly but maybe he didn’t explain himself to well.

I have a tendency to wait until the storm quiets down. This is always overwhelming for most and that I might be speaking heresy. I'm not. However, neither do I mean to infer I am fully correct. I haven't arrived.

Now we all know that Jesus the man is God manifest in the flesh.

Lets make a distinction here: You [and I] are to be manifesting God in the flesh. Lets speak now of the differences between Jesus and us. Given the Nature of the Father the resurrection affords us called the , "[u]work[/u] of the cross", it is a learning process to be walked out in Christ Jesus called the [u]"way"[/u] of the cross, wherein He leads. Upon the new birth, the imputation of the Nature of the Father, a child is born and by the impartation of His Character; produces the Life the Father is looking for from His child, the son is then given back to the Father.. It is called the 'way of the cross' for that reason. We learn by His example and what we suffer and all for the sake of the Father do we do it. Jesus did that. That is why I have been asking if you [all] were born again.

We know also that Jesus said God is Spirit. We know that Jesus is God and Man, and I can’t speak for Ormly but hopefully he believes this also.

Again, lets qualify: The Word became flesh. In the process, He, the Word, laid aside His divinty that the "body prepared for Him" could suffer and die. Upon successful completion of the task given the body called Jesus, The Word picked it all back up and kept His perfected body to forever abide in, glorifying it in the Godhead.. The Word now has nail prints in His hands. The reason for creation is now complete in Him. All In Heaven is now waiting for the "sheaves" to be gathered up, for the wedding banquet to begin. You partly say as much below:

We know that Jesus as very God emptied himself and became man to die as a man on the cross. The Word is God and did die as a man but we know that God (as Spirit) can never die. Maybe he was saying the spirit of God didn’t die on the cross but only God the man. We know that Jesus gave up His Spirit to the Father and died as a man.

Amen!

Even us when we die as a man our spirit is released from our body and will keep on existing either in heaven or in hell but wont have a body again until the resurrection.

To Phillip He said: "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father". The Man Jesus was full of Grace and truth; full of the Father. Again, this is what the new born of Him is to be. The process of becoming a son is God's complete will for everyone who claims the Name of Jesus. Again, as Chambers puts it with regards to the process: What we call the beginning, God calls the end. [Oswald Chambers My Utmost July 28] I recommend this reading to everyone . . . unless they just want to argue.

I don’t quite follow Ormly when he talks about divinity because we shouldn’t think that we will be in the Godhead. We will have the divine nature and be a glorified man but we will not be deity. It would be heresy to think such.

And John when he says: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" 1 John 5:5 (KJV)

Still a cause for concern though because I really don’t quite follow Ormly.

Hope this helps my case, rbanks.[/b]

PaulWest wrote:
Ormly said:

What we can see from scripture is...supportive that Adam was to be what Jesus became, i.e., a Divine-Human representative in the Godhead

Behold the reason for concocting this thread: the propagation of the abovementioned teaching. The intro question poised was merely the springboard to set the weapon's sights downfield. As Ron Bailey once said, such people are not looking for discussions, but surrenders.

[b]So what is your argument? Twice before I have asked you to respond. This is my third time. Are you with all those who say God purposed Adam to fail just to redeem fallen man? Perhaps you might explain why God would do such a thing; to allow so much misery for 4K years? For His pleasure, no doubt?[/b]

[b]It ain't pride as you suppose, Bro., just some vented frustrationat with those who accuse without good investigation of what is being presented. Notice, no one has commented on the Oswald Chambers references, choosing rather to keep on accusing me of heresy. Is He also a heretic? I see that more as a pride issue than anything, not wishing to be wrong or perhaps disturbed from their status quote religion... at any cost. "Who's next" is only meant for them. Even you, had you read my reply to rbanks would find no pride from me in that, i.e., unless you wish to find some. But then that is easy regardless of who writes anything. After all, who wants to be told they are wrong.

I have run out ideas in how to present my perspective to those will not be persuaded regardless of one's 'humble' dispostion. All you have to do is re-view my posts from the beginning and watch the responses go sour when I hit upon something unfamiliar to them that shakes their world; contradicts their biased commentaries.. It takes time to think and then to write and even more to grasp what is being written. That sortta sez it all about those with the 'oh so fast', replies.
Remember I wrote once, "Read the Bible and write your own commentary". I believe you agreed with me then. Well, that's what I still do.
No one has the right to call anyone a heretic without careful examination of what is written by that person. No guess or 'seems like you saying' in the attempt to get one to say more about what he ISN"T saying. They all try hard to do that. Sortta Satanic in my estimation.

Anyhow, words mean something. I sometimes like the challenge to write it out because it keeps me on my toes to be certain, at least to my mind what I believe to be the more complete gospel.

To be a heretic one must violate the word of God. Where is my violation? . . . and where is the pride that after the accusations I would respond: Whose next?

Have lost track, but if I am not mistaken you have accused three here with the question of "Are you born again?"

Is it devisive? You bet it is. I can't apologise for that. That's God's business.[/b]

[b]Nope! Apparently you all just missed me.

I did note there wasn't much activity goin on til I arrived. Seems all the arguing over who struck John was finished and there was nothing more for folks to argue over. . Maybe you should thank me for pumping flesh blood and something meanful, into it. [/b]

Beter PM Mamaluk. I might not be here long enough to reply to your inquiry. I am sorry should that be the case.