Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 3 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: More on the "Common Fall"

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    What is the Doctrine of the common fall?

  2. #2
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    What is the Doctrine of the common fall?
    See this thread: http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1768
    This is my signature.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Brandan, it did nto work, but I am having some trouble with the comp today.

    Anyway, Bob, or anyone who denies the common fall, does this have to do with all falling in ADAM? Elect and Reprobate?

  4. #4
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Yes, we deny that the reprobate fell in Adam. We believe only the elect fell in Adam. The reprobate were created in the eternal sin of Satan.
    This is my signature.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    Yes, we deny that the reprobate fell in Adam. We believe only the elect fell in Adam. The reprobate were created in the eternal sin of Satan.
    I think you enjoy doing this to me BK.!!!!!!! Where is that spoken of in scripture? The elect are "guilty" from one sin and the reprobate another?

    Before I get into this, let me understnsad this correctly.

    1) you deny The Federald Headship of Adam?
    2) you deny 2000 years of church teaching?
    3) do you deny the doctrine of original sin?
    4) What is the eternal sin of Satan?

    Joe

  6. #6
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I think you enjoy doing this to me BK.!!!!!!! Where is that spoken of in scripture? The elect are "guilty" from one sin and the reprobate another?

    Before I get into this, let me understnsad this correctly.

    1) you deny The Federald Headship of Adam?
    2) you deny 2000 years of church teaching?
    3) do you deny the doctrine of original sin?
    4) What is the eternal sin of Satan?

    Joe
    I do not deny the federal headship of Adam. Like I said, the elect fell in him.
    I do not believe Adam represented the reprobate.
    I believe Satan is the reprobate's representative.
    I do deny much of the traditional thought on this subject.
    I do not deny the concept of imputed sin. The reprobate's sin is unredeemable sin because God has said so. It is everlasting. The sin of the elect was only temporal in Adam because they have a Savior.
    Read that thread I posted.
    This is my signature.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    I do not deny the federal headship of Adam. Like I said, the elect fell in him. I do not believe Adam represented the reprobate. I believe Satan is the reprobate's representative.I do deny much of the traditional thought on this subject.I do not deny the concept of imputed sin.The reprobate's sin is unredeemable sin because God has said so. It is everlasting. The sin of the elect was only temporal in Adam because they have a Savior.
    Read that thread I posted.
    I am trying to, but I cannot connect for some odd reason.

    Where can I find in scripture anythign that speaks of "Satans Eternal SIn" imputed to the reprobate?

    ANother immediate objection would be the "cause" of reprobation.

    This appears to suppose that God created man without a purpose. This is contrary to His attribute of wisdom. God first fixed the end for man's creation and then determined the means to create him. No wise potter would first make his pots and then decide for what use he made them.

    God did nto create the reprobate just to damn them, He created them for His Glory. The elect and reprobate are from the same lump. His decree of reprobation is traceable to His good pleasure. If sin were the cause of the decree, then all would have been rejected because all fell in Adam! The same lump, coincides with a "common fall". Your line of reasoning puts the reprobate in a different lump, and ands up saying they are destroyed becuase of satans sin. Predestination is man as lying in the mass of creatorship, signified by a lump of clay before being put into shape. There is probably an allusion to the creation of Adam out of the dust of the ground. The word "Adam" means "red earth" or clay.

    I do nto know BK. I believe you may be straining the gnats, but closing your eyes to the 2 big humps of a camel on this one. But I will give it a fair shake because at least it makes me think!!!!!


    Joe

  8. #8
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Cool Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    This appears to suppose that God created man without a purpose. This is contrary to His attribute of wisdom. God first fixed the end for man's creation and then determined the means to create him. No wise potter would first make his pots and then decide for what use he made them.
    I'm not saying that. We believe that God made the reprobate pot for the purpose of damning him.
    God did nto create the reprobate just to damn them,
    Yes He did.
    He created them for His Glory.
    His Glory in Damning them.
    The elect and reprobate are from the same lump.
    Unfallen lump. Not a fallen lump.
    If sin were the cause of the decree
    I'm not saying that. Sin is the result of the decree.
    then all would have been rejected because all fell in Adam!
    All did not fall in Adam.
    The same lump, coincides with a "common fall".
    No it doesn't. That's infralapsarianism.
    Your line of reasoning puts the reprobate in a different lump, and ands up saying they are destroyed becuase of satans sin.
    You could put all of the Angels, Satan, Elect and Reprobate all in one lump in God's mind before the foundation of the world. All of them are vessels - each of them fitted for a different purpose.
    This is my signature.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    51
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    If the reprobate did not fall in Adam, where did they inherit their sinful nature from?

    Preaching about hell is not a persuasion technique. The purpose of preaching about hell is not to scare people. The Bible talks about hell and preachers are supposed to preach everything that is in the Bible. Moreover, we are supposed to speak the truth to everyone.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    I'm not saying that. We believe that God made the reprobate pot for the purpose of damning him.
    Well, lets us look at what Scripture says. And there is no hint He created them just to Damn them.

    First, it was because God is willing to show His wrath. The punishment upon these vessels of wrath will be made an occasion of God's exhibition of His holy anger against sin. His hatred of sin is absolute, and the vessels of wrath will be made to experience it to the fullest extent. The entrance of sin into the world was necessary to manifest God's wrath and hatred for sin. He tolerates sin in the world for the very purpose of glorifying Himself in its punishment.

    Second, it was to "make his power known." This truth is illustrated in the case of Pharoah (Rom. 9:17). The power of God is what punishes men for their sins. Their destruction proceeds from "the glory of his power" (II Thess. 1:9). The eternal damnation of some sinners will demonstrate to the universe the power of God. Sin in its nature is a dishonor to God, but He overrules it so as to turn the destruction of the wicked to His glory. This is a most wonderful display of Divine power to men and angels.



    Quote Originally Posted by bk
    Unfallen lump. Not a fallen lump.
    I agree. Which also includes no hint of same eternal sin of Satan.

    Quote Originally Posted by bk
    All did not fall in Adam.
    Yes All did according to te writ. Some redeemed, some not


    Quote Originally Posted by bk
    No it doesn't. That's infralapsarianism.
    You could put all of the Angels, Satan, Elect and Reprobate all in one lump in God's mind before the foundation of the world. All of them are vessels - each of them fitted for a different purpose.

    IT is ALL creation Brandan. No need ot put them into diffeent categories. I do nto know how this infers infra. THere is a direct relation to the words used by Paul to signify ALL creation is part of the same lump for eternity. Hence if they are all created from the same lump, (the earth, red clay) Thay ALL have adam as their federal head.

    Men are not passed over by God because of their sins, for if this be true all would have been passed over. Both election and reprobation are owing to God's good pleasure. "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Essu have I hated" (Rom. 9:11-13).

    He could have justly left the elect as well as the non-elect to perish in their sins. Had He been pleased to do so, He would have still been the King of kings and the Lord of lords. The wicked are treated as they deserve to be treated. All are ill-deserving and undeserving. None have any claim on God, for His will is the only rule for His mercy. God in His sovereignty has power to dispose of His creature according to His good pleasure, either to choose or refuse, according to the counsel of His own will. Job 33:13 says: ". . . for he giveth not account of any of his matters."



    Joe

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    ANother obvious objection, besides the fact this belief is unscriptural, is that it makes one's salvation dependant upon how they were created. The fact remains, were are from the "SAME LUMP". The difference is because God purposed to save the Elect in Christ, and not the rest.

    The common fall of man, both elect and reprobate, gives more Glory to God for Salvation in Christ and the Work of the Holy Spirit upon the elect sinner. This is very close again to denying the elects guilt because of Adam, and outs the reproabte in a different lump,.

  12. #12
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: More on the "Common Fall"

    I'm done answering questions and objections until you read that other thread Joe.
    This is my signature.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: More on the "Common Fall"

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    I'm done answering questions and objections until you read that other thread Joe.
    OK, I will let you know when I am done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: More on the "Common Fall"

    Quote Originally Posted by bob
    Paul's doctrine of election and reprobation before existence or having done either good or bad is in harmony with the view that the clay refers to the dust of the ground from which God determined to create an elect and reprobate humanity.
    Brandan, I wrote,Predestination is man as lying in the mass of creatorship, signified by a lump of clay before being put into shape. There is probably an allusion to the creation of Adam out of the dust of the ground. The word "Adam" means "red earth" or clay.

    You answered that it somehow represents infra. This same lump of unfallen humanity is from where God creted. TO espouse the reprobate are created with some "eternal sin" infused into them is not found in the writ, as far as I can see.

    From what I read in the previous thread, I am aligning myself with Ian, I will definately give this more thought because it is very important in my feeble estimation.

  15. #15
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: More on the "Common Fall"

    I thought you meant that the lump was a fallen lump from which God fashioned all men as infras plainly teach.
    This is my signature.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: More on the "Common Fall"

    THe more I read about this "theory" the more it begins to resemble the seedline doctrine, or identity doctrine. This espoused Gods savation was because of race, or creation and not grace.

    All of humanity, every single sperm/egg creation comes from the same lump. There are not LITERAL decendants of satan. I believe this is the logical conclusion of this belief. That somehow Satan impregnated eve in the garden, and begat Cain.

    Adam & Eve were driven out of the Garden before the birth of any children. This perversion leads to the theory that the pharisees of Christ's day were from a supposed literal seed of Satan, John 8:44.

    Certainly, we cannot deny that God does chose to exalt one nation or peoples above all others; this He has done in His Sovereignty throughout history, e.g., Babylon, Dan 4:26, 32, 35, &c. But it is the greatest of sins, pride, for any of us to consider ourselves exalted above all others without focusing on the works of Christ for His sheep.

  17. #17
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: More on the "Common Fall"

    The difference between our view and the parkerite two seeders is they believe the seed is physical instead of spiritual.
    This is my signature.

  18. #18
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Well, lets us look at what Scripture says. And there is no hint He created them just to Damn them.
    Are the reprobate to be damned? If so, that's the reason they were created.

    Will the elect be glorified? If so, that's the reason they were created.

    Did Jesus save His people? If so, that's the reason He came into this world born of a virgin.

    Did Adam sin? If so, then he was created for that purpose.

    Was adam saved? If so, then he was created for that purpose also.

    Of course the ultimate reason for anything is God is glorified.

    Joe, this is not rocket science. It's simple logic.
    This is my signature.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    Are the reprobate to be damned? If so, that's the reason they were created.

    Will the elect be glorified? If so, that's the reason they were created.

    Did Jesus save His people? If so, that's the reason He came into this world born of a virgin.

    Did Adam sin? If so, then he was created for that purpose.

    Was adam saved? If so, then he was created for that purpose also.

    Of course the ultimate reason for anything is God is glorified.

    Joe, this is not rocket science. It's simple logic.

    This is not their primary reason though Brandan. It is to glorify God. Show His power. All I meant is it does not state in scripture, "I created the reprobate just to damn them." They end up damned, but why are they damned? Are they damned because of their sin? Yes. There is a difference between reprobation and damnation. Just as their is a difference between election and salvation.

  20. #20
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,843
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    101
    Thanked in
    68 Posts

    Re: John's Gospel vs. Low Grace Evangelicalism

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Are they damned because of their sin? Yes. There is a difference between reprobation and damnation.
    The ultimate reason is God wanted it.
    This is my signature.

Page 1 of 3 1 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "IT'S TIME TO PLAY, 'NAME THAT HERETIC'"
    By Reformed Presby in forum Churchianity Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-17-05, 12:42 PM
  2. Expository Studies
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-07-05, 05:15 PM
  3. Tatoos Biblical?
    By red beetle in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-29-05, 11:58 AM
  4. Why dinosaurs?
    By Stabby in forum Old Miscellaneous Archive
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 03-24-02, 08:45 PM
  5. Two questions in one
    By parksidemike in forum Old Miscellaneous Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-18-02, 07:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •