Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[GWH]

Where do you find if accepted in the verse?

Is Isaiah 55 correct? When God's word goes forth does it always accomplish it's purpose? If the gospel goes forth and it does not result in salvation, was God's purpose accomplished?

I cited no verse. I suspect you are trying to trick me into giving you a fish.

 

[Rufus]

Correction: the word is not dechomai but dektos. On the road yesterday and failed memory.

I was responding to this (my highlights):



33 "So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God." 34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NKJ)

This is Peter's account of being prepared to be sent to evangelize a Gentile - Cornelius, then being sent, then evangelizing, and recapping the experience.

Observations:

• God showing no partiality mainly concerns Jew vs. Gentile and secondarily those who fear Him and those who do not.
• Cornelius was a believer in the God of the Jews
  • Brings to mind at minimum Rom1
• Cornelius was yet an unbeliever in Jesus Christ
  • Cornelius the unbeliever was a man who was "fearing" the God of the Jews
  • Cornelius the unbeliever was a man who was "working righteousness"
  • Cornelius the unbeliever was "a dektos man to God"

Dektos per BDAG Lexicon main points (my highlights):

1. pert. to being met with approval in someone’s company, acceptable, welcome,
2. pert. to being pleasing because of being approved, pleasing, acceptable,
3. pert. to being appropriate to circumstances, favorable,

Yes, it does seem to me that a God conscious unbeliever can fear God, do what Peter called works of righteousness, and be pleasing to God, and that God will send someone to proclaim His Gospel to him, and yes, even prepare him in some way to be receptive to it.

Glad you finally recognize that Cornelius was a God-fearer. You are aware, right, that the Fear of the Lord is a unilateral, efficacious grace of God?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

I'm actually thankful to RDBD for insisting that Gen 3:21 teaches that God's provision of animal skins (presumably from innocent animals slain in the Garden) "proves" that A&E were both saved. But this assumption presents more problems than it solves. Chief among them is that the assumption presumes that Salvation is a one-sided coin...or that the Salvation Train runs on only one track, i.e. the Savior's Provision. The assumption conveniently forgets that the Salvation Train runs on two tracks: The Savior's Provision and the Sinner's Response Thereto. After all, there is no text in scriptue that teaches "the just shall live by God's atoning work". Rather, "the just shall live by [their] faith" (Hab 2:4).

I do not believe that God providing His Offering for Adam and Eve negates the need for the "Sinner's Response Thereto".

Adam and Eve could have walked away from God and could have continued in their wholly inadequate fig leaf aprons, but Gen 3:21 tells us God clothed them and they did not run around in fig leaves.

And this in turn presents another huge problem: God's atoning work in the Garden had to be efficacious, according to such a poor presuppositon above! God saved the entire human race (A&E), without any regard to their response to His work? (Talk about megabytes of irony!) Yet, at the same time, we know that His work could not have been efficacious since it very clearly did not positively affect Cain who turned out to be a seed/offspring of the Serpent.

Interesting that under your surmising concerning Adam, your statement should read "Cain who turned out to be a seed/offspring of the Serpent Adam"

Also, please note, I never stated "God saved the entire human race" ... I have always maintained that God has provided all that is necessary in order for all mankind to be saved and those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness receive the consequence of rejecting that which God has so graciously provided. There is no indication in Scripture that Adam or Eve rejected the offering for sin, nor did Adam or Eve reject the coat provided by God. Both Adam and Eve received God's grace.

(Or maybe God got creative and had two different plans of salvation: one for A&E and one for their progeny?)

yikes ... talk about "megabytes of irony error"

So...the question that is begging for answer in light of the text above is: What was God's purpose in providing animal skin coverings for our first parents? Since the blood of animals can never take away sins and God himself takes no pleasure in such sacrifices as were commanded in His holy Law, then surely what was written above applies with equal force to the pre-Law era. Here's my two-prong answer to the question: God provided animal skin coverings to generally show mankind that man cannot hide his real guilt and shame for sin by his own methods; but even more specifically to the Genesis text God provided animal skin coverings to evoke a Faith Response from Eve whom He had elected earlier unto salvation(3:15). Election very clearly preceded Eve's faith!

newflash ... Eve did not bear the Messiah. Messiah is the seed [singular] of the woman (Gen 3:15).

Even Eve understood that her animal skin coverings were not the real answer for her guilt and shame. She acknowledged God and expressed her appreciation to Him twice (4:1, 25) for His help in bringing forth two male children -- both of whom she very likely thought would fulfill the [messianic] "seed" prophecy (Gen 3:15) within her own lifetime. Little did she realize that that prophecy would take thousands of years to fulfill!

and what did Eve say about Cain?

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Eve believed Cain was "from the LORD" ... and you want to continue to insist that concerning Adam and Eve, Eve was the only one who had faith in God?

Have you considered Genesis 5:3?

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth

Seth was begotten in the image and likeness of Adam (not Eve as you continue to insist)

Seth is named in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ (as is Adam) in Luke 3. Eve is not mentioned in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Adam is. And if anyone is going to insist that it's because Adam is the father ... well, there are other females mentioned in the Christ line in Matthew ... Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, Mary. Scripture is silent concerning Eve when it comes to the genealogy of Messiah.
.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

So, if we do a chronological timeline flyover of the Genesis account, which I like to do often with narratives because by such an exercise a bigger picture often emerges to provide us with a deeper understanding of a given passage and helps us to avoid that pernicious disease of mental myopia.

1. The first prophecy in scripture is the Fall (2:16-17).

What about Genesis 1:14?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

"signs, seasons, days, years" refers to more than just fall, winter, spring, summer. Recall the magi who travelled to see the Lord Jesus Christ. When asked, they told Herod "we have seen His star in the east".

2. We can know this prophecy was a result of divine Prerogative (decree) and not mere Prescience by the fact that God purposely did not consign the devil and the rest of his rebellious horde to eternal punishment immediately after they fell, but rather He cast them down to the earth to interact with humanity in order to accomplish his good, holy and perfect will. Satan would be the perfect Antagonist in God's story of mankind's Redemption.

In Gen 1:26&28 we are told that originally man had dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

However, in Luke 4:6, the devil told the Lord Jesus Christ all this power [over all the kingdoms of the world] ... is delivered unto me.

The transfer of the dominion over those things God had placed under Adam was delivered to satan when Adam and Eve sinned. And please note, the Lord Jesus Christ did not correct the devil, so we know in that matter, the devil did not lie.

3. From 3:15 we see God again exercising his Prerogative with the cast of characters involved in humanity's fall. He cursed the Serpent above all the other beasts upon the earth; He [implicitly] reconciled Eve to Himself by placing enmity between her and the Serpent (therefore removing the enmity between Eve and Himself) and between her seed and his seed; and by excluding Adam from his reconciliation promise which can only mean that God consigned Adam to be a child of the Serpent.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Since, according to you, "God consigned Adam to be a child of the Serpent", you've got satan in the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 3:38) and you've got God in some sort of relationship with satan as Luke 3:38 clearly states Adam, which was the son of God (Luke 3:38). What kind of nonsense is that?

What God said in Genesis 3:15 is that He would put enmity between Eve and the serpent so Eve would be on her guard if/when satan came around again to entice her. satan purposely targeted Eve and beguiled her. God putting enmity between Eve and satan was protection for Eve so that she would not fall so easily into the snare of satan. satan didn't deceive Adam. satan deceived Eve, she ate, and Adam ate so he would be one flesh with his wife just as stated in Gen 2:24.

4. This divine decree was certainly effectual since Eve expressed gratitude/faith twice to God in the account (4:1, 25), and even Adam understood that she would become the mother of all the spiritually living (3:20).

Eve is the mother of all physically living.

God is the Father of all spiritual living. Do you believe God shares His parenthood with a mortal ... even your beloved Eve?

However, with Adam (who is always contrasted with Christ!) there is not a scintilla of biblical evidence that he ever repented and trusted God for the atonement provision He made.

"Adam (who is always contrasted with Christ!)" ... have you considered the fact that Adam joined Eve in her death? Eve died the moment she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil ... Adam joined her because she was his wife ... Adam became one flesh with her (Gen 2:24).

The Lord Jesus Christ ...

Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

hmmmm ... see any similarities there, Rufus? ... or are you blinded to the fact that Adam is a foreshadowing of the Lord Jesus Christ ? ... just as Abraham was ... just as Moses was ...

The really big question, then, isn't whether God's Atonement Provision was sufficient or not for both A&E, but the question is one of design/purpose for God's atoning work. The mere assumption on the part of many professing Christians is that God designed his work to be effectual for both our first parents (which again is beyond Mega Irony given the complete lack of evidence for any faith on the part of Adam); yet, the biblical evidence tells us that God designed his work to benefit Eve and all her godly seed, which exluded Adam and Cain.

Cain, yes, Scripture is clear concerning Cain ... you have yet to provide sufficient Scriptural support that Adam was “exluded”.

So, the post-Fall account not only teaches Unconditional Election with respect to Eve but also Irresistible Grace since Eve did respond favorably to God's earlier decree and gracious provision,

Where do you find evidence that Adam rejected God's "gracious provision"? ... please provide chapter and verse for your claim.

God's Offering covered the sin of both Adam and Eve and all descendants who were in the loins of Adam and Eve.

God clothed both Adam and Eve. Neither of them rejected the coat God clothed them with.

and Limited Atonement (in the quantitative sense) as well, and Perseverance of the Saints since Eve's faith carried over many years later 'till the birth of her third son at least,

rolleyes ... Scripture according to Rufus ...

Genesis 5:3 And Adam Eve lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his her own likeness, after his her image; and called his name Seth

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam Eve, which was the son daughter of God.

AND last but not least Total Depravity since Cain could not change what he had become even with the empirical evidence he had for God's existence! He could not bring himself to repent of the sins in his evil heart.

Here is what God told Cain:

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

notice God did not tell Cain “sorry Cain, you are in "Total Depravity",“ therefore you cannot “bring [yourself] to repent of the sins in [your] evil heart“, but, you know, if you do well you will be accepted (even though you cannot "do well" because you're not "elect").

God explicitly told Cain:

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God laid out the blessing to Cain if Cain would humble himself.

God laid out the consequence to Cain if Cain did not humble himself.

Cain suppressed the truth in unrighteousness ... Cain chose not to humble himself ... and Cain suffered the consequence.

Even after Cain rejected God, when Cain complained that God's judgment was too harsh, God graciously set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him (Gen 4:13-15).
.

 

[sawdust]

So of the first 3 verses you shared, you are suggesting that world means every single human? In 1 John 5:19 says the whole world is under control of the wicked one. Does this mean every person ever born? Are you under the control of the wicked one?

Really?

1Jn.5:19
19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Based on your interpretation of this passage and applying it to the verses I quoted earlier, we will have to assume Christ died for the wicked and not for believers at all for you are implying only the wicked form the "world". This contradicts every time you said He only died for believers. You make "world" fit your theology, sometimes it's believers and sometimes it's unbelievers. Make your mind up to whom it applies.

Every person ever born is under the sway of the wicked one until they believe the Gospel.

John uses the word "kosmos" in two ways, as a system of Satan like thinking (the verse above) or meaning the planet earth and it's inhabitants. To the best of my knowledge, he never uses it to describe believers only. So if you want to make "kosmos" fit to be believers only, find that verse that clearly shows "the world" means believers only.

 

[Rufus]

1. "He (GWH) ignored several scriptures that teach that everything written in the OT applies to NC believers, is relevant to us, is to be taken to heart by us and this is why they were written for our benefit and instruction (Rom 15:4; 1Cor 10:6, 11; Heb 4:11; 2Pet 2:6; Jude 7)."

Not at all ignored, but rather I have repeatedly asked Ruf to suggest a Scripture he wants us to discuss next.

2. "The rhetorical question requires the answer I gave above because self-deceived people are always unaware of the lies they have grown to love and believe ... " Ruf refuses to understand that this projection applies more to him, because he is the one
who ignores so much Scripture in order to believe TULIP, whereas I am willing to discuss it all--and without being pejorative!

3. "GWH also ignores, downplays, diminishes or even dismisses the universal scope of this deception that reigns in all men's hearts w/o exception": Well, then it reigns in Ruf's, too, but again, I love GW and discussing it all.

Your answer to the rhetorical question was essentially that Jeremiah was speaking only to a rare anomaly with his fellow Jews of his day. And that is a non-answer. Self-deception is a universal phenomenon in all sinners as I proved in my 2771. All you did was gloss over a text that doesn't speak of sinners in flattering terms. But then again...there are no scriptures that speak of sinners in glowing ways.

 

[Cameron143]

I cited no verse. I suspect you are trying to trick me into giving you a fish.

I'm not trying to trick anyone. The verse being considered is Romans 1:16. And I don't believe you have any fish.

 

[Rufus]

What about Genesis 1:14?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

"signs, seasons, days, years" refers to more than just fall, winter, spring, summer. Recall the magi who travelled to see the Lord Jesus Christ. When asked, they told Herod "we have seen His star in the east".





In Gen 1:26&28 we are told that originally man had dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

However, in Luke 4:6, the devil told the Lord Jesus Christ all this power [over all the kingdoms of the world] ... is delivered unto me.

The transfer of the dominion over those things God had placed under Adam was delivered to satan when Adam and Eve sinned. And please note, the Lord Jesus Christ did not correct the devil, so we know in that matter, the devil did not lie.





Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Since, according to you, "God consigned Adam to be a child of the Serpent", you've got satan in the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 3:38) and you've got God in some sort of relationship with satan as Luke 3:38 clearly states Adam, which was the son of God (Luke 3:38). What kind of nonsense is that?

What God said in Genesis 3:15 is that He would put enmity between Eve and the serpent so Eve would be on her guard if/when satan came around again to entice her. satan purposely targeted Eve and beguiled her. God putting enmity between Eve and satan was protection for Eve so that she would not fall so easily into the snare of satan. satan didn't deceive Adam. satan deceived Eve, she ate, and Adam ate so he would be one flesh with his wife just as stated in Gen 2:24.





Eve is the mother of all physically living.

God is the Father of all spiritual living. Do you believe God shares His parenthood with a mortal ... even your beloved Eve?





"Adam (who is always contrasted with Christ!)" ... have you considered the fact that Adam joined Eve in her death? Eve died the moment she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil ... Adam joined her because she was his wife ... Adam became one flesh with her (Gen 2:24).

The Lord Jesus Christ ...

Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

hmmmm ... see any similarities there, Rufus? ... or are you blinded to the fact that Adam is a foreshadowing of the Lord Jesus Christ ? ... just as Abraham was ... just as Moses was ...





Cain, yes, Scripture is clear concerning Cain ... you have yet to provide sufficient Scriptural support that Adam was “exluded”.





Where do you find evidence that Adam rejected God's "gracious provision"? ... please provide chapter and verse for your claim.

God's Offering covered the sin of both Adam and Eve and all descendants who were in the loins of Adam and Eve.

God clothed both Adam and Eve. Neither of them rejected the coat God clothed them with.





rolleyes ... Scripture according to Rufus ...

Genesis 5:3 And Adam Eve lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his her own likeness, after his her image; and called his name Seth

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam Eve, which was the son daughter of God.





Here is what God told Cain:

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

notice God did not tell Cain “sorry Cain, you are in "Total Depravity",“ therefore you cannot “bring [yourself] to repent of the sins in [your] evil heart“, but, you know, if you do well you will be accepted (even though you cannot "do well" because you're not "elect").

God explicitly told Cain:

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God laid out the blessing to Cain if Cain would humble himself.

God laid out the consequence to Cain if Cain did not humble himself.

Cain suppressed the truth in unrighteousness ... Cain chose not to humble himself ... and Cain suffered the consequence.

Even after Cain rejected God, when Cain complained that God's judgment was too harsh, God graciously set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him (Gen 4:13-15).
.

You can't resist arguing from silence can you? You just cannot stick with what is actually revealed, can you? Where in scripture is the proof that Adam repented of his sins and trusted God?

And God spared Cain here in temporal reality, but I kinda doubt Cain made it to the pearly gates since he is characterized in characterized in scripture as one of Satan's seeds (1Jn 3:12). So...unless you think heaven is filled with people who when they died died as children of the devil, then what did God's grace eternally accomplish for Cain?

Also, Eve did not remain in her state of death since God reconciled her in Gen 3:15 -- AND Adam was smarter than you are because he understood the implications and ramification to what God said in 3:15 and subsequently called her the "mother of all the living". Also, the Messiah did not descend from a spiritually dead person! This is why he passed over Adam and does descend from him. To Eve, he gave life. To Adam: he remained DEAD!

The rest of your post is also filled with absurd errors which I'm not going to waste my time with.

And your inane remarks about Seth would be really funny if they weren't so pathetic. Didn't Adam and Eve produce Cain and Abel also? One turned out to be a reprobate, the other a saint. The saint did not remain in Adam spiritually but was in Eve spiritually! You're talking physical seed/offspring whereas Gen 3:20 speaks to spiritual seed. How we know that is that the devil has a great multitude of spiritual seeds, as I proved previously.

 

[Cameron143]

Really?

1Jn.5:19
19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Based on your interpretation of this passage and applying it to the verses I quoted earlier, we will have to assume Christ died for the wicked and not for believers at all for you are implying only the wicked form the "world". This contradicts every time you said He only died for believers. You make "world" fit your theology, sometimes it's believers and sometimes it's unbelievers. Make your mind up to whom it applies.

Every person ever born is under the sway of the wicked one until they believe the Gospel.

John uses the word "kosmos" in two ways, as a system of Satan like thinking (the verse above) or meaning the planet earth and it's inhabitants. To the best of my knowledge, he never uses it to describe believers only. So if you want to make "kosmos" fit to be believers only, find that verse that clearly shows "the world" means believers only.

Clearly it isn't referring to every individual in any of the passages. And that's the point. My original ask of you was what verses say that Jesus paid the sin debt of every individual. You offered 3 verses. Now you say those verses don't teach this, and rightly so. Do you have any other verses that teach that Jesus paid the debt of every individual?

 

[Magenta]

It's odd that you would infer otherwise and think human volition usurps God's power rather than accepts or rejects it.

Weird. It's exactly what you push.

 

[Magenta]

I don't believe you have any fish.

He's just fishy.

 

[Rufus]

Really?

1Jn.5:19
19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Based on your interpretation of this passage and applying it to the verses I quoted earlier, we will have to assume Christ died for the wicked and not for believers at all for you are implying only the wicked form the "world". This contradicts every time you said He only died for believers. You make "world" fit your theology, sometimes it's believers and sometimes it's unbelievers. Make your mind up to whom it applies.

Every person ever born is under the sway of the wicked one until they believe the Gospel.

John uses the word "kosmos" in two ways, as a system of Satan like thinking (the verse above) or meaning the planet earth and it's inhabitants. To the best of my knowledge, he never uses it to describe believers only. So if you want to make "kosmos" fit to be believers only, find that verse that clearly shows "the world" means believers only.

I'm just going to butt into your conversation with Cam very briefly to say two things since Cam is quite capable of expressing himself clearly. First, CONTEXT of any given passage determines how the Gr. term "kosmos" is used, and a very large percentage of conservative, evangelical language scholars recognize that there are at least 8 or 9 definitions to this term and the term is also used often in a spiritual sense.

Secondly, regarding this spiritual use of "world", you should spend some time in John 17 to see how Jesus used the term "world" -- you know the "world" He explicitly omitted from his prayer. Hint: All mankind is IN the world; but not all mankind is OF this world.

Have a nice evening...

 

[Magenta]

I'm just going to butt into your conversation with Cam very briefly to say two things since Cam is quite capable of expressing himself clearly. First, CONTEXT of any given passage determines how the Gr. term "kosmos" is used, and a very large percentage of conservative, evangelical language scholars recognize that there are at least 8 or 9 definitions to this term and the term is also used often in a spiritual sense.

Secondly, regarding this spiritual use of "world", you should spend some time in John 17 to see how Jesus used the term "world" -- you know the "world" He explicitly omitted from his prayer. Hint: All mankind is IN the world; but not all mankind is OF this world.

Have a nice evening...

Some of us have been called out of this world. But we have heretics who deny this. They hate us.

Jesus' words in John 15 verse 19 and John 14 verse 17 ~ If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him.

 

[Rufus]

Then why do some not receive the benefit even though Christ paid the debt for all men?

Easy answer: Because you're assuming that Christ died for all w/o exception -- when in fact He died for all w/o distinction.

 

[Cameron143]

Some of us have been called out of this world. But we have heretics who deny this.

Jesus' words in John 15 verse 19 and John 14 verse 17 ~ If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him.

Alot of people here are out of this world.

 

[Magenta]

Alot of people here are out of this world.

They are certainly outside of what Scripture teaches. It cannot even be determined where they get some
of their beliefs, though they do definitely fall into the category of vain philosophies and traditions of man.

 

[Rufus]

Some of us have been called out of this world. But we have heretics who deny this.

Jesus' words in John 15 verse 19 and John 14 verse 17 ~ If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him.

And the really crazy thing is that Jesus was very clear in John 17. He actually speaks about the Father's elect being IN the world but like Him NOT OF it! But so many FWers don't have the eyes to see this truth or the ears to hear. But other than these very minor, inconsequential little setbacks, there's nothing major wrong with them.

 

[Rufus]

They are certainly outside of what Scripture teaches. It cannot even be determined where they get some
of their beliefs, though they do definitely fall into the category of vain philosophies and traditions of man.

All inspired by the devil. So, what else would we expect?

 

[Rufus]

Chose to get out of bed and meet the day.

Wow! That's a really significant spiritual choice... I chose to eat sausage and veggies tonight. I suppose you think that, too, was a spiritual choice?

 

[Rufus]

I do not believe that God providing His Offering for Adam and Eve negates the need for the "Sinner's Response Thereto".

Adam and Eve could have walked away from God and could have continued in their wholly inadequate fig leaf aprons, but Gen 3:21 tells us God clothed them and they did not run around in fig leaves.

Good, then provide the biblical proof that Adam responded with faith. There's evidence for Eve, but where is it for Adam? You think God's Provision proves that both A&E were saved. But it does not! You simply read your assumption into that passage.

And for your info, I can pull the same lame argument from silence buffoonery that you do. I can just as easily say re the red highlighted remarks: Scripture doesn't say that either of the two didn't subsequently shun their God-given garbs and choose their own fashion instead. See how easy it is for me to refute you.