I still don’t know about the Hoffeditz issue. I feel for the guy and know that he was a great prof, and I wish him the best. But there’s so little information about what actually happened and why the administration did what it did. The conspiracy theorists would say that they are trying to cover it up. I simply believe that it’s an issue of privacy. It’s none of our business. Which is why I think there’s more to the story that would go to support the administration if they let it out, but they don’t because they want to protect Dr. Hoffeditz. But the Facebook group will continue to make their assumptions and base it on silence, instead of looking for real facts.

But if they are somehow correct that Dr. Hoffeditz was ousted for doctrinal reasons and there was no error in him, then these are certainly dark times for Cedarville. I’m just not so quick to assume.

Adam was our legal representative because he was the first and all others would come from him

We receive our sin from Adam when we receive our soul from our parents (how this metaphysically works is beyond me)

We were present in Adam when Adam sinned when we were “in his loins” - speaking of genetic decent.

There is certainly an aspect of this that is tied to genetics, which is why humans are the only ones held morally responsible for Adam’s sins. Animals feel the effects, but share no genetic link to Adam and are therefore not responsible.

Dr. Kreeft is funny. I liked how direct he was.

An existentialist would say we are sinners because we sin (because they say we are what we do) but a good Thomist knows that we are sinners by our very act of being (because being is an act).

Isn’t Dr. Kreeft funny?

I haven’t yet answered because 1) I think Mina’s been doing a pretty decent job of saying pretty much what I would say and 2) I’m mostly taking what you say into consideration for my next few posts. I’m going to first establish our Total Depravity in the next post from Romans 5, and from there I will talk about Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and finally Perseverance of the Saints - not necessarily in that order.

A lot of your arguments will be addressed at that time, and I want to take my time preparing the posts so I can do the best I can.

In the meantime if you want to draft a full fledged post of your own in favor of your position, I’d be happy to post it for you word-for-word. I believe very much in hearing all sides of an argument, and would love to present an opposing view for all to see. Lemme know.

(PS. That goes for anyone who’s reading this. I’ll probably only take one or two posts, but if you want to draft a post in support of Arminianism or Evangelical Calvinism (4 point) (also apparently called Amyraldianism), let me know)

Understand that I do not claim to know everything nor have full understanding on these issues or how best to interpret all these Scriptures. I freely admit I may be incorrect. Half of my purpose in posting all of this is to help me think it all out so as to come to a fuller understanding. Right now I’m pretty convinced that Reformed Calvinism (5 point) is correct, but who knows. Maybe some day I may wake up to a BFO telling me that I’ve been wrong all this time. I want to make sure that I’m at least pursuing what is true. And ultimately what’s important?

“Pre-trib, post-trib, five point, no point, heal me, slay me, free will, no will
As our common ground leans to the moribund…
He came to set the prisoner free
A message of simplicity”

“I just know Jesus is the way
I just know Jesus is the truth
I just know Jesus is the life
I just know Jesus is my God”

What’s ultimately important is that Jesus is Lord because by His death, burial and resurrection, He has purchased life from the dead and yes, all who believe will be saved. It’s really that simple. I’m just exploring the infinite depths behind it to gaze in awe and wonder at my Lord.

“that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
Need I quote more? Calvinism (what is apparently interpreted from Ephesians) contradicts the rest of the Bible. Either Ephesians should not be part of the Canon, or someone is misinterpreting. I would go with the latter.

John 4 talks about the woman of Samaria. See what JESUS says to her. v. 23- ;for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. v.10 talks about the gift of God and how she should ask for the living water.

QUOTE: Now, in my Bible (Spanish) I see that the pronoun “that” is in the neutral form - rather than the feminine - so it can’t be referring to either “grace” or “faith”. In that case, the most logical explanation is that it refers to the the WHOLE DEAL - which would have to include both parts. Besides, to say that only the grace is a gift would be redundant.(2) AND if our faith came from entirely from ourselves, wouldn’t we then be saved by a work (by something WE DID - choosing to believe)?
(2)The word work here is not describing the action of accepting the gift of God. Romans 3:28 says, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” - Also written by Paul… Is he contradicting himself?
2nd Timothy 1:9,10 says, “who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not acording to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality TO LIGHT through the gospel…” Brought salvation to light it says.
God giving faith as a gift goes against the definition of the word “faith.” 1st Corinthians 1:21 (another one by Paul) says, ..God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those WHO BELIEVE”.
Hebrews 11 describes faith very well. It talks about many Old Testament characters Having Faith. They had the faith; it wasn’t given them.

My eye is twitching. Time to stop. Great discussion! Why isn’t mike replying on here?

Kevin

RAAAAEEEERRRRRFFFF!!! THE HILL LIVES

#1 - You can’t purposely leave out half the verse and then accuse me of taking things out of context.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are you saved through faith AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is a gift of God; not of works, that no one can boast.

Basic rule of English grammar - antecedent for the pronouns “it” and “that” would be the last compatible noun - ie “faith.” At the least. If you are using an English Bible, that is the simplest, most logical and straight-forward interpretation of the sentence without doing a word-study. Now, in my Bible (Spanish) I see that the pronoun “that” is in the neutral form - rather than the feminine - so it can’t be referring to either “grace” or “faith”. In that case, the most logical explanation is that it refers to the the WHOLE DEAL - which would have to include both parts. Besides, to say that only the grace is a gift would be redundant. AND if our faith came from entirely from ourselves, wouldn’t we then be saved by a work (by something WE DID - choosing to believe)?

#2 - As far as the larger context of Ephesians 2 -
Read Ephesians 1 and 2 all together. It is not a passage about “works of the flesh” (as you contend) but about the amazing Grace of God (see 1:3-14, 1:18-23, 2:1, 2:4-10, 2:13-22). When “works of the flesh” are finally mentioned in 2:2-3, it is as evidence of how very “dead in sins” we were (2:1, and 2:5) as a contrast with God’s gracious salvation. (side note: How can a DEAD man choose anything? Doesn’t God have to make us alive before we can accept him? And isn’t this “making alive” essentially the same concept as “removing the veil”?) Verse 11 mentions flesh again (though not so much “works”) and again is in a “before you were . . . but God” sequence . . . everything else in the whole 2 chapters except those 3 verses (and maybe 1:1-2 and 1:15-16) is about what God has done for us.

I am NOT saying that the context doesn’t allow your interpretation of verse 8 (although I think the second half of verse 8, verse 9, and the dead-ness issue raise a couple good points that you should consider). I’m just wondering how you can say that I took the verse OUT of context . . . my interpretation focuses on the mind-boggling grace of God, which is EXACTLY what the context is about.

Again, with the free will issues - please see the earlier posts.

“Satan is only allowed to do what God lets him” (I agree with this, by the way). But - don’t humans have this same constraint? After all, He is God. Aren’t you essentially saying that we can limit God in what He is able to do (our minds block his ability to unveil our hearts), after saying that Satan is unable to to limit God in the same way? It would seem to me, to make more sense, that we, like Satan, and like our circumstances, are also under God’s control. Also, God’s justice does not necessarily mandate his choosing everyone (there have been a couple earlier posts on this site dealing with that issue). And that EXACT same passage in Ephesians 2 goes on to say that our faith is “not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.” So even “our end of the deal” is ultimately a gift.