Exactly it is referring to creation that you call creature.
You assume it(creation) is Adam and nothing else.
Where does Paul say Adam?
Kermos' calvinist bias is why it must be assumed it(creation) is Adam,
Subjected to futility, because of Adam's sin the creation is subjected to futility, God does this
Genesis 3:17-19
- Then to Adam God said, because you have heeded(obeyed Eve) the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you saying, You shall not eat of it,
- cursed is the ground for your sake,
- in toil you shall eat of it, all the days of your life
-both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
- and you shall eat the herb of the field,
- in the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken, for dust you are, and to dust you shall return
Kermos perverts the word of God. Nowhere in Romans 8:20 does Paul say the creation ate of the tree.
This is adding his twist on Romans 8:20. You cannot find creation eating anything in this verse.
Romans 8:20,
- For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of God who subjected it in hope
Where is Adam eating fruit from the tree God forbade him?
Kermos is making stuff up!
Paul absolutely without a doubt uses figurative phrases in Romans 8:20.
This is ridiculous!!!! Paul does not have to state "I'm writing figuratively here folks"
It is understood by the context.
Obviously,
No one would argue against this.
No, you have Added to Gods word by teaching creation is Adam.
Adding Adam was eating from a tree in Romans 8:20.
This is interpreting scripture through the lenses of TULIP colored glasses.
This is figurative. Paul is speaking of creation not a particular man named Adam. That is where you are inserting your biases into the text.
Yes, and words have no meaning taken out of context.
Which is exactly what you have done with the word not, willingly.
The word pistis is Greek for faith.
It sometimes means gospel.
Other times means belief.
You cannot know the meaning of a word unless you know the context of that word being used.
Ephesians 4:5,
- One Lord, one faith(pistis), one baptism
Here the greek word pistis does not mean person belief.
Paul is using pistis to mean the gospel system by which there is only ONE.
Context matters!
Galatians 1:6-7,
- I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another(Paul stated in Ephesians 4:5 there is only ONE gospel(pistis).
In Jude 3 the word faith(pistis) is used for the gospel that was once delivered.
Jude 3,
- Beloved while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith(pistis, gospel) which was once for all delivered to the saints
Paul uses pistis which by greek definition to mean different things based on the CONTEXT.
Words have no meaning when the context is ignored.
Or in Kermos' case, intentionally taken out of context.
Above is Kermos' wrong interpretation that Adam had no will of his own to eat of the tree which was sin.
This is the reason Kermos' interpreting the Bible proves why he is irrational and confused.
Why would any rational person accept his explanation of why Adam sinned?
It makes no sense that God would punish Adam if Adam commited sin not willingly!!!
According to Kermos Romans 8:20 has Adam eating of the tree not willingly,
So the question that Kermos needs to answer is,
Why does God punish Adam when Adam took no part in choosing to eat of the tree?
Adam according to Kermos played no part in his own actions.
Kermos' reasoning is ridiculous and this is why his position cannot be rationally explained.
Any belief that cannot hold up against scrutiny must be abandoned.
Kermos doesn't think. He just repeats the same illogical theology because he is a dyed in the wool hardcore calvinist that cannot be reasoned with.
Folks who cannot be reasoned with are a waste of time.
Matthew 7:6,
- Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn and tear you in pieces
You have God as the cause of creation being subject to futility as integral in Romans 8:20 in your quoted writings (which breaks the Greek grammar as shown in item 12, also see item 1 for a proof link), and you have Adam as the cause of the creation being subject to futility according to Genesis 3:17 in your quoted writings (see item 5 for a proof link); on the other hand, the Holy Spirit has Paul declaring that Adam not willingly caused the creation to be subject to futility according to Romans 8:20, and the Word of God declared Adam as the cause of the creation being subject to futility according to Genesis 3:17. You convey a very confused message because you fail to acknowledge the Truth (John 14:6) in Romans 8:20.
Please note, once again, that you have included that the mountains have a "will" and the trees can become "the children of God" because of your use of the word "creation" per your quoted writings about Romans 8:20-22 (see item 9 for a proof link).
When you wrote that none of creation is at fault for subjecting creation to futility, and bearing in mind that Adam is part of creation, then by extension the conclusion of your thoughts is that Adam was not at fault for subjecting the creation to futility, not by Adam's choice, not by listening to his wife, no how; therefore, your conclusion by default leaves God at fault for subjecting the creation to futility, that is, God caused everything resulting in creation being subjected to futility according to your thoughts; on the other hand, I acknowledge that you wrote that Adam caused the creation to be subjected to futility by his choice of eating of the tree forbidden as food, yet this is in direct conflict with your other set of thoughts that God caused the creation to be subject to futility, so the end result is that your thoughts exhibit extreme confusion.
The conclusion of your concept is a collision of conflict and complete confusion.
No place in Scripture states that man's created with a free will to choose toward God; therefore, you are adding free will to choose toward God into the scripture.
You illegally and illegitimately redefine words as is demonstrated in this post, and you fail to justify your changes that break Scripture (and "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)).
@Nancy, because of your Like for Titus' post, you joined yourself to Titus' confusion.
This is Spiritual Truth (John 14:6), yet what you post, what you call "reasoning holds up in the real world", is confusion according to Spiritual Truth (John 14:6)!
continued to post 1,922
Last edited: