King David and Donald Trump? Maybe more than you realize, but that’s not good for anyone!

Posted by expedition44 on November 8, 2024

If you haven’t read this article on King David, Start here.

There is a lot about this popular 2024 post-election MEME that doesn’t sit well with me.

DAVID AS A PURE HEARTED PERSON

To be clear, I do think David had a heart postured after the Lord in his youth before he became king. I LOVE young David and the writings of his heart. They are some of my favorite parts of the Bible and have motivated me to be more holy than likely any other texts in the Bible. I do believe he was one that God intended to use to return all of Israel and eventually the world to be reconciled back to Yahweh. David seemed to have a heart postured towards the Lord in his early days, but the power, the lust, the flesh and the pride of life not only led him way, but likely all of Israel away from the LORD. David was “chosen” by God to be His tool to bring redemption back but accomplished the opposite.

He became the anti-hero of the world’s doing rather than the hero that God intended him to be.

As I have made the statement previously, I do not feel that a faithful reading of the Hebrew in 1 Sam 13:14 says that “David had a heart after God’s own heart” per the usual interpretation. John Walton convinced me that the expression doesn’t describe the inclination of the king but describes the sovereign choice of God. The claim is not that David pursues the heart of God as a spiritually mature person rather than pursuing his own ends; instead, David is the man that God has pursued with his own criteria in mind rather than Saul, who was someone who met the criteria of the people. It is a statement about God’s sovereignty, not about David’s spirituality or piety. John Walton has alluded then that it is therefore not something that we can aspire to in our own lives, and I would agree. Eventually David becomes the very image of Israel, fallen and completely idolatrous. To most theologians he is the Biblical archetype of the one who was intended by God to bring Israel back to Yahweh yet accomplished the exact opposite and led Israel away from God towards utter sinfulness and idolatry giving weight to the powers and principalities that had overtaken the rest of the ancient world at that time.

WAS DAVID REPENTANT?

David, when confronted with sin does sometimes seem authentically repentant (Psalm 51; 2 Sam 12:13-20), but then often continues to go on sinning. That isn’t the fruit of a truly repentant heart. In most cases if someone committed murder and said they repented but then goes on to do it again, I think we would come to the conclusion they didn’t genuinely repent when they said they did. Which seems actually worse; to put on a show of repentance (in the name of the LORD) but not really have a heart of repentance. It’s just an act.

DAVID AS A WARLORD

Scholars debate whether David’s destructive actions represent justice or unnecessary power mongerering. Did he feel “commissioned by God” in his somewhat empirical pursuit that started with Canaan or did this become a push for personal power and fame? Some argue David was playing the part of God’s hand of retributive justice, others criticize David for excessive continual violence opposite to that which God had sanctioned. Either way, much of it seemed contrary to God’s ways. Some try to justify the actions saying it was simply the culture, but I don’t see that theologically, as it seemed quite contrary to the character of God and what He had given them in the law. It seems David was doing what David wanted, not what Yahweh wanted. David’s kingship paints a picture of a powerful warlord who engaged in much bloodshed to establish and maintain control of the kingdom of Israel.

Here is a snapshot of those David personally killed or had killed:

Goliath 1 Samuel 17:49-51
Goliaths Brothers. David chose five smooth stones because Goliath had four brothers based on 2 Samuel 21:15–22. That passage lists four very large Philistines who were related to Goliath in some way: Ishbi-benob, Saph, Goliath, and an unnamed giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:22).
When David heard the news about Saul and Jonathan’s deaths from an Amalekite messenger, he had the man executed (2 Samuel 1:1-16).
Baanah and Rechab presented Ish-Bosheth’s head to David hoping for a reward. However, David ordered them killed.
After becoming king, David executed seven of Saul’s sons. (2 Samuel 21:1-14)

THE WAR MONGERER

There are some tell tale signs of David’s movement away from God, this will surprise many, but David had served as a mercenary soldier for the Philistine king of Gath (see 1 Samuel 27:2-4), it took seven years of fighting for David (who had been anointed King of Judah) to defeat Saul’s son Ishbosheth and establish the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah in c.1004 BC (see 2 Samuel 2:8-11, 3:1-39 & 4:1-12). David quickly consolidated his position by capturing the Canaanite city of Jebus (Jerusalem) and establishes his new capital there, the City of David (2 Samuel 5:6-10). Having agreed on an alliance with the Phoenician king of Tyre (see 2 Samuel 5:11), David was able to turn against his former patrons, the Philistines, and defeat them in the Valley of Rephaim (see 2 Samuel 5:17-2). Over the next few years, David succeeded in completely subjugating the Philistines and taking control of the southern coastal plain cities of Gaza, Gath, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron (see 2 Samuel 8:1). Any red flags yet?

As I mention earlier, David’s son, Solomon, seemed to follow closely in David’s ways (or be used by him) and was able to complete the downfall of the Philistines by negotiating a dynastic marriage with the Egyptian pharaoh Haremheb’s daughter in c.970BC (see 1 Kings 3:1) and taking on the role of Egypt’s former ally. By building a chariot city at Gezer to defend the trading route from Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia he was able to secure the support and protection of Egypt – one of the ‘superpowers’ of his day (see 1 Kings 10.26-27). Any other red flags?

Meanwhile, David had turned his attention to the northern frontier, and in an amazing series of military campaigns beyond the River Jordan, succeeded in defeating the people of Moab, the Arameans of Damascus, the Syrian King of Zobah, and the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (near the Dead Sea) (2 Samuel 8:1-14). In just under thirty years, David had succeeded in transforming a small kingdom in the central highlands of Judaea into a major empire stretching from the border of Egypt to the lowlands of Mesopotamia. In the process did he trade God’s kingdom for a personal pursuit of power and fame?

As you can see, this is a lot of bloodshed. 30 years of continual bloodshed. There is a good deal of deceit and lies between rulers and intermarriage. Idolatry was rampant. He named a city after himself and countless other things that seem to point back qualities that are rival to Yahweh, not in alignment with God but rather self serving initiatives.

THE RAPE OF BATHSHEEBA

Well into this bloodbath we read the story of Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11:1-27 during the siege of Rabbah (Amman) in c.997BC. I have made the statement a few times that I wouldn’t leave my kids alone in the same room with the “David of latter life” and this story is one of the reasons why. By 2 Samuel 5 God seems to still be with him, but within a few short chapters (2 Samuel 12) the LORD was not pleased with David because of his sin and neglect for God’s holiness and sends the prophet Nathan to confront him. You may have never considered the whole “Bathsheba problem.” As we examine the details, we see that it is actually sexual abuse of power, in other words, rape. Neither the text nor the context supports the conclusion that it was an affair between two consenting adults. People who think Bathsheba seduced David by bathing outside his window may not realize the Hebrew verb rachats, used for Bathsheba’s action here (2 Samuel 11:2), literally means “wash” which is how it is translated elsewhere in this narrative (2 Sam. 11:8; 12:20). There is no reason to assume that Bathsheba was naked, or that she was aware that the king, who should have been with his army, would have been watching from his rooftop like a peeping Tom (2 Sam. 11:1-2). This “kingly” act was common in other cultures where evil ran rampant. It was a fatal sign that David was leading Israel to be more like the fallen pagan-evil nations around them than the “set apart under Yahweh nation” that was called to be holy unto the LORD. It was detestable to the LORD at many different levels.

David’s rape-adultery and murder is described biblically as “despising the word of God by doing what is evil,” and “total contempt for the Lord,” (2 Samuel 12:7-9). David’s rape-adultery, murder, and abuse of power was not rewarded by God with more power. It actually resulted in many consequences such as division and violence in his family and those he was leading. Also, it resulted in a child dying, and his denial to build the temple. God is no longer with him.

THE CONSEQUENCE OF SIN

The consequences of David’s sin are lasting and far-reaching. From Rape and incest with Amnon and Tamar, to the murder of Amnon by Absalom for the rape of his sister, the war among the Israelites leading to David fleeing Jerusalem in shame for fear of his life from his own son. We watch the downward spiral as eventually David is part of an illegitimate census that seemingly stirs the anger of the Lord against the Israelites and seventy thousand Israelites die from a pestilence allowed (and perhaps caused) by the LORD. David was a violent man in a violent world, a polygamist, an adulterer, and a murderer. There just isn’t any way to avoid seeing that if we read and believe the Bible. The progression in David’s sin reveals a callousing of his heart.

It has always seemed strange to me that the mainstream church doesn’t want to read the text as it is both plainly and deeply read here. It is as if they are covering him up and putting him on a pedestal. This is in part why the modern evangelical church has trust issues. Doing this seems so contrary to the character of God – attempting to cover up continued evil acts and promote David into something that God approves of. That isn’t the intention of the text nor a faithful rendering of it.

GOD’S FAVOR AND SPIRIT LEFT DAVID AND ISRAEL

As in the wilderness the cloud signified the Spirit of the Lord coming and going, we see that after Israel went on a bloodthirsty empirical pursuit led by King David, the spirit of the LORD is no longer with them which Nathan warned. One way to see this is to harmonize the Psalms. A theologically daunting task is to figure out when David wrote the Psalms. When you do this and carefully read them, I will challenge you to discover that after the encounter with Bathsheba the Lord was no longer with him, or perhaps looking onto him with favor. There are times we read from David’s perspective of crying out to the Lord, but it comes from a sort of tone of a drunk alcoholic asking why their friends have left them, which is likely exactly what it is. David wrote 73 of the 150 Psalms in the Bible, and carefully studying the ones he wrote and the dating of them will help you see what I propose in terms of his downward spiral taking Israel down with him in terms of a spiritual nation.

HARMONIZING THE PSALMS & HERMENEUTICS

After the death of Absolom if you harmonize the scriptural narrative (2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1 Chronicles) with the Psalms this is what we find. Remember a great part of theology is in determining the narrative. What are the voices? What is simply the story given for our interpretation and where is God in it. What do we read as being the thoughts of the characters involved, verses how God may have viewed the ongoings. That is as much for our interpretation as the red letters are, but the red letters are decisively clearer. Too many people read the entire Bible as a “thus saith the Lord” statement rather than understanding the literary narrative as it is presented. Not understanding the voices in the text has led many towards poor theology. It is vital for literary scholarship to apply literary criticism and textures of interpretative law to the narratives of the Bible for faithful reading.

2Sam 21 Famine and Gibeonites → Ps 29, 65
Last war with Philistines → Ps 36
2Sam 22 Song of deliverance → Ps 18, 144
2Sam 24 David dedicates Temple → Ps 30, 33, 131 (32)
1Kings 1 Solomon anointed King → Ps 47
1Chr 28 David‘s address → Ps 145
Concerning building Temple → Ps 104, 133, 86
1Chr 29 David‘s Thanksgiving Prayer → Ps 72
2Sam 23 David‘s last words → Ps 37 (138)

If you care to dive in deeper, Don Stewart and Blue Letter Bible have a rather deep post on this here. As I don’t agree with BLB on several topics, I do respect their mission and believe they are doing good things. I think what they have given us here is a worthy tool.

Again, I will challenge you to read the narrative. Where is God in it? He isn’t there any longer. The spirit has left the encampment.

Coming back to the meme…

We are not called to celebrate or try to “be like David” or even celebrate those who act like him, we are called to be like Jesus. And yes, Jesus works through fallen people but usually the ones on the road to transparent sanctification, not the ones that continue to live in sin. David’s story is a man who started out well and did not end well. He still carried a warring and vengeful spirit into the grave. From His kingship to death, we have a person that possibly had a chance to do more for God than any other person yet failed miserably accomplishing the near opposite leading Israel into idolatry that would give way to a return to slavery in exile. On his death bed he asked Solomon to kill Shimei, who confronted David on his bloodshed and abuse of power. (1 King 2:9, 2 Sam 16:8).

If you are making illusions that President trump resembles King David, well you might be right; but you’re actually making a statement more for Trump being far removed from God than you are that He is aligned with God. I hope that is not the case. My heart is that Trump as president is aligned with God not “rival” to Him as we see David was.

However, this isn’t all negative. I like the way the Bible project frame’s the early life of David. Jesus saw his role as Israel’s messiah was to patiently wait for God to exalt him as king, just like David waited. He anticipated persecution from his own people would come, just as it did for David. The stories about David provided the template of Jesus’ messianic vocation, and they epitomized the upside-down value system of God’s kingdom that Jesus was always talking about. It’s a kingdom where the poor and persecuted are the most exalted, and the powerless are God’s chosen ones (go and re-read the famous beatitudes in Matthew 5:1-7 and think about them in light of the story of David). When Jesus read the stories of David, it wasn’t to learn interesting facts about Israel’s history. Like the prophets, Jesus read His Bible as a prophetic history that was pointing towards the future hope of the messianic Kingdom of God. These stories about David were designed to foster that very hope, in Jesus’ day, and in our own.

But there was also a double meaning as Jesus often implied with such amazing rabbinical tact, there was a contranym within the narrative. David led Israel away from God and Jesus would lead the entire world back to God. It was the anti-hero next to the real hero. Luckily, we don’t need to make David into something he wasn’t a lifelong great pillar of faith – we have Jesus. David’s story and writings still gives us a great deal to glean from. Keep your eyes focused on Him and learn what you can from the rest of the story! The world wanted another Warlord David type to overthrow Rome, but instead they got a lamb to the slaughter. This is Jesus!

Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis.

Separated from God?

Posted by expedition44 on September 26, 2024

What does it mean to truly be Separated from God?

The idea or doctrine of separation from God is often misunderstood within current evangelical Christianity. Make no mistake, humanity continues to make choices to be separated from God, but I would venture to say most Christians have an inaccurate view of this separation. Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. At that moment death was passed on, but not their original sin. And to be clear fellowship with God was also not lost as you often hear! That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. If you remember in the garden, He didn’t walk with them 100% of the time (Genesis 3 alludes to this.) It is true that Adam and Eve were “removed” from the garden, which was God’s domain; and then placed or led back down to lower or common earth and guards were placed at the entrance as to not allow them back into Eden.

In a basic sense humanity at that moment was separated from God. If my kids are fighting, I separate them (and often relocate them) but that doesn’t mean that my intent is to sever the relationship, I am merely changing their space. After the fall what changed is that from this point on God would have to go to people and meet the people where they were, rather than the people naturally dwelling in God’s sacred space -Eden. Metaphorically, instead of my kids playing in my room I have to go visit them in their room. In this sense there was a type of “separation” but not inability. Perhaps it would make the relationship more difficult but, but the intent certainly was not to sever, quite the opposite actually. This understanding is important when forming your “separation theology” and your basis for understanding the character of God to Humanity.

Similarly, after the fall, to Israel He was a cloud and “walked” with them similar to the way that he walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, that aspect of their relationship to God wasn’t lost, it was always offered and up to humanity to accept or reject. The intent and purpose that God started in the Garden to walk with his royal priesthood didn’t change after the fall, it just “distanced” the plan.

One thing that is very important that few have come to realize is that today, through Jesus we are actually better off or closer is distance or proximity than Adam and Eve were in this sense of walking with God, this is the heart of the new covenant -we have His Spirit residing in us continually as we are His temple. Jesus not only returned us to what we had in Eden but perfected it. Does He come and go such as described in Genesis 3? No, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again as the core of who and what His Spirit offers to us. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us. I am not really even comfortable saying that we are or were temporarily separated from God as I truly see the Spirit continually meeting the most broken people in the most broken places. (I will remind you that after the fall God still sent his presence to reside with people.) Today, God and His spirit are continually available to us, but we also still have to make the cognitive choice to enter into that walk. That’s always been the choice of humanity -choose to walk with God or choose to be separated (live divided or rival) from Him. That is the core of our free will. Adam and Eve’s banishment from the garden did a lot of things theologically, but to say that it separated (severed) us from the presence of God, as a lot of doctrines would understand it -seems to be theologically inaccurate. The offer from God to continue fellowship with Him strongly continued after the garden. In fact, that may actually be the central theme of all of scripture!!! One of the main character attributes of God is the desire to continue walking with everyone that would enter into a covenant with Him. He would continue to be faithful to that relationship when others would be unfaithful.

Separation from God is theologically defined as “Hell”. One of the issues that people have a hard time understanding is that our English translations use only one word for “hell” when there are several words that described slightly different contexts of what our one word meant in both the Old Testament and the New Testament in Hebrew and Greek. The great majority of the time we see the English word Hell translated in our Bibles it is the Geek word “Gehenna” describing more of a loose “hell on earth” separation from God. Gehenna was an actual place in the ancient world. The Valley of Hinnom, Gehinnom or Gehenna is a historic valley surrounding Jerusalem from the west and southwest that has acquired various theological connotations, including as a place of divine punishment, in Jewish eschatology. The term Gehenna in the first century was regularly used as an idiom for something like “the other side of the tracks” (Matthew 5, 10, 18, 23 as well as Mark 9 and other places). in this way when the word hell was used it had a metaphorical sense similar to what we might say as “life is hell.” But I also would say we have to be careful here as the implication was that these places were thought of as being “far from God” but that isn’t necessarily accurate. Jesus actually spent a good deal of time in these darker places. In other words, the world would say that God may be separated from these places but God, especially through His son doesn’t seem to be bound by any kind of separation to them. In this sense as I express early, Jesus regularly met people in “their hell.”

There is also a parallel to this way of thinking in most of the early church creeds in the understanding that after Jesus’ crucifixion he descended into the depths to “meet people in their hell” and possibly regain the lost keys of life and offer them to those in that place that was formerly “separated from Him. I would venture to say that Jesus’ theology would be consistent having the same or very similar requirements to these “souls” that we are given in the rest of the scripture and particularly the new covenant. Interesting to think that a large part of Jesus’ mission was to again offer this kind of relational life in the afterworld to those that seemingly rejected it (or had never had the chance perhaps) to now accept that relationship.

In some cases (similar to those listed above) and in the OT, the realm of the dead is the Hebrew word sheol often translated as hell. The New Testament Greek equivalent to sheol is hades. In the New Testament, this is only found a few times such as in Matt 16 when the “gates of Hades” was used as a colloquial Jewish phrase for death and a reference of the fallen spiritual beings in a Deuteronomy 32 worldview sense. Surprisingly, the least used term for Hell in the Bible is the one most people think of the most “as hell”, and is translated as the lake of fire, mentioned only in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, 14-15, and takes on the traditional view of the “final hell”, for what seems to be the destiny of both fallen spiritual beings (to which it was created by original intent) and human beings that have not chosen to accept and live for God – this is an eschatological state of judgement.

However, in some way, all the translated types of hell seem to describe a condition of being separated from God.

In conclusion, traditionally we have misinterpreted separation to be something that was put between us and our relationship with God in Eden, yet the Bible doesn’t say that. God’s intimate and vivacious pursuit to walk or have intimate relationship with us is tied closely to His character and thus never changes. Through Jesus we are actually closer in proximity to Have His spirit in our Hearts than what was first given at Eden. God’s pursuit to have intimate communion with us is stronger and closer than ever before.

What did Adam and Eve’s Sin actually do to you? Reformed roots-

Posted by expedition44 on September 25, 2024

If you grew up in modern evangelical circles, I am sure you were raised in church hearing something like,

Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, you and I now live personally separated from the tree of life and from the presence of God. The whole human race at that moment was flung into the downward spiral of the curse of man and God’s wrath, the weight of their sin and God’s judgement fell on them and therefore continues to fall on us as if we also made the cognitive choice that Adam and Eve made.

Many x44 people have gone through a bit of an exegetical deconstruction of what they have always been told that the Bible says finding out that what they have traditionally been fed and believed likely isn’t the nature of God or what the Bible actually says. Renovation is needed and usually bears fruit and opens the thresholds towards devotion to the Lord. As I agree with a good part of the statements above, I believe such similar statements to be misleading and stunt a person’s road to sanctification. First much of this way of thinking is tied to the pillars of Calvinism. I will mostly quote from R.C. Sproul who is commonly known as the best Theologian to hold to and explain Reformed theology and Calvinism. To be clear I have read every article and book I source completely. My library has as many books defending Calvinism (and likely more), than I own from the free will camps. Before Sproul passed, I knew him personally and greatly respected him and agreed theologically with him in some capacities (such as partial preterism) but unfortunately feel that he was way off on becoming the popular spokesperson for Calvinism. This article is intended to be a “quicker” read, if you are interested in diving into this conversation, I would suggest the X44 Original Sin series here.

To be clear, thinking that every person is somehow under spell handed down to them generation after generation by reformed circles camps own definition is called Total depravity (also called radical corruption and is foundationally tied to the concept of original sin)^[1] and asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to trust God for their salvation and be saved (the term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as they could be).^[2] This doctrine is derived from Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine’s explanation about Original Sin.^[3] The singular scripture that is used for this is:

“Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

We also have an entire x44 series on Atonement and get into regularly why the way the reformed camps use this verse singularly (along with a few others) is neither exegetical nor follows the laws of hermeneutics. Notice that it was death that passed (separated now from the sustaining Tree of Life) or came upon all, not Adam’s personal disobedience. But to remind you of a few basics, Romans 5 needs to be read in context, not simply plucking one verse out to make a doctrine out of it. Scripture seems to teach that sin itself is not inherited (although the consequences for Israel often stretched to 4 generations): “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Eze. 18:20). Everyone is responsible for their own conduct (Rom. 14:12). Sinfulness often begins in one’s youth (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25). Children must reach a level of maturity before they are able to choose good and evil (Isa. 7:15, 16). Little children are held up as models for those who seek the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14). The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; it is given by God (Ecc. 12:7; Heb. 12:9).

In our YouTube video ORIGINAL SIN series we addressed how Original Sin (the pre-cursor to Calvinistic doctrines) is not Biblical or Ancient.

The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5^th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.

NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr

The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence. Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew. Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation. The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.

Concupiscence

Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
- I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
- God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.

We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
- John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
- Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”

One issue with teaching that sin is inherited is that it means God is then judging you for someone else’s action. That obviously isn’t scriptural. Thinking this way holds you back. In Christ we have life -not death. Once we accept this life here and now and eschatologically to come, we are called and charged to live in holiness separated from any ties of sin. That is what it means to live a life in Sanctification.

FROM HERE I WANT TO SHOW THE PROGRESSION INTO 5PT CALVINISM, but if you already know that, skip down to the next similar starred divider to continue reading:

The next problem with thinking we are bound to the sin ascribed to us that it would mean that we are also then unconditionally elected (also called sovereign election)^[4] which asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. Some may argue the connection, but if you believe you came into this world already doomed by someone that came before you then you believe at least some part of the decision has been made for you. I do believe in the corruption of the fallen world, but we are called to be delivered and live in freedom. The effects of the death that came in through Adam are not or do not have to be continual towards you. You are only responsible for your choices in terms of life with Jesus. With this you also venture into a very similar doctrine called limited atonement (also called definite atonement)^[5] asserts that Jesus’s substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’s death. This is cosmic lottery language. I can’t find anything in the Bible that goes this way and neither could the early church. These are all modern “inventions” that came from the Reformation.

Thinking this way is also tied to the idea of irresistible grace (also called effectual grace)^[6] which asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. Essentially this believes that God created robots and determined their ways before time. It completely discounts the many passages that clearly teach free will. It leaves reformed theologians having to do all kinds of theological gymnastics with verses about free will.

Finally thinking that you are responsible for the sins of the ones that came before you is also ties to a Calvinist doctrine called the perseverance of the saints (also called preservation of the saints;^[7] the “saints” being those whom God has predestined to salvation) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with (1 John 2:19), or, if they are saved but not presently walking in the Spirit, they will be divinely chastened (Hebrews 12:5–11) and will repent (1 John 3:6–9).^[8] Most people refer to this as once saved always saved. But in this case, if you believe that sins were tied to you at birth, your theology if it is consistent would also then get to the place of believing that everything was set before you and if that is the case, to be consistent if you were intended by a sovereign God to be saved then how could you lose that? The problem again goes back to the fact that the Bible continually teaches that we are responsible for the decisions we make and even though when we make and allegiant confession our past is made clean, we continue to be held responsible by a just God for decisions thereafter. You can’t make a onetime proclamation and go on living in sin and expect to be saved. The proclamation of life in Christ is ongoing. Ot is a journey, an expedition. This is why I have said many times, if you are going to take on any form of reformed theology it should be one or all of them. Perhaps the worst theology is those that try to adhere to a few points of Calvinism but not all of them.

Here is a better way of thinking about original sin rather than falling into Calvinist doctrines such as the above… (these are borrowed and slightly reworded from my good friend Greg Boyd at reknew.org.

1) I do think it is theoretically possible for an individual to live a sinless life, you do too if you truly believe in the complete humanity of Jesus! Yet, this isn’t inconsistent with admitting that everyone will inevitably sin. Think of it like this. Every car crash (let us assume) is preventable, if only drivers were more careful. Hence, it is theoretically possible that there will be no car crashes anywhere on the earth today — or this month — or this year — or ever. But it is certain there will be car crashes, for which drivers are responsible. The thing is, statistical certainty doesn’t negate individual responsibility. We are responsible for every sin we commit, -we didn’t need to do it. We could have done otherwise. It’s theoretically possible to go the rest of our lives without sinning. Yet, it’s certain that, over our lifetime of decisions, we will sin. I believe most evangelical American Christians are far from this, but we don’t have to be. The worldly entanglement has led way to daily sins. But I do believe we were called and created and expected to do better before the Lord.

2) I see “original sin” as mostly being born into a screwed-up world that is oppressed with fallen powers. This doesn’t make us sin nor are we responsible for the sins before us that contributed to it. Yet, it does render it certain that we will eventually sin (see above). This is, in part, why we need a savior. To be clear one we are dead to our old selves we should not continue to live in sin or the slavery of the world. Paul makes this exceedingly clear.

3) Finally, it is important that we not think about this only in individualistic terms. From a biblical perspective (and now, with much confirmation from science), the human community is, in a sense, one person, extending back to Adam. We were made to live, disciple, and be discipled in the community of those that walk with Jesus. We influence each other, and are responsible, in varying degrees, for one another. So we have collectively gotten ourselves into a situation where we can’t avoid sin, and the responsibility is shared by all of us. This is what Paul means when he says we were in Adam. Yet, we are now placed in Christ — all of us (I Cor. 15:22; Rom 5:14-20). It’s just that we all (including believers) tend to see ourselves and our world as though we were yet in Adam. Transitioning from Adam-thought to Christ-thought is what discipleship is all about. One of my biggest grumbles with evangelical modern church is we don’t disciple to live devotionally to the LORD in communion with the perseverance of the saints.

Getting back to where we started, Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. I have an article on this here.

That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. God does not remain separated from us, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us.

We don’t have to live in depravity or a downward spiral. That is another huge theme of the Bible! God has more for you! Claim him, get into the word, be surrounded with the community of saints, and live and walk with Him every hour of every day! Refuse the world and all that it offers. You were purposed for more! Don’t let Satan sell yourself short! Claim victory and live in perseverance walking with the LORD and those that walk with Him. Seek discipleship and disciple! Live out your kingdom destiny!

God’s wrath in scripture is the handing over of his unrepentant sinful people to what they have coming or what they have earned. It is removing the providential hand from their lives. The weight of your sin and consequences of your decisions are real but you don’t need to and shouldn’t dwell there! Don’t dwell in your sin. Get redeemed! God offers you healing and freedom here and now! Step into it, believe it and live it. You are no longer to be bound to your flesh or former ways of the world. Step into it and live it!

let me articulate a better view:

The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. 1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17, and so many more passages make all of these things abundantly clear.

Sproul, R. C. (March 25, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root,” which is radix, and it can be translated root or core.
^ Steele, David; Thomas, Curtis (1963). The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented. P&R. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-87552-444-3. The adjective ‘total’ does not mean that each sinner is as totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be. Instead, the word ‘total’ is used to indicate that the “whole” of man’s being has been affected by sin.
^ Livingstone, Elizabeth A. (2005). “Original sin”. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
Sproul, R. C. (April 1, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. Unconditional election is another term that I think can be a bit misleading, so I prefer to use the term sovereign election.
Sproul, R. C. (April 8, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. I rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, which communicates that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect, and that Christ died for His sheep and laid down His life for those the Father had given to Him.
Sproul, R. C. (April 15, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don’t believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.
Sproul, R. C. (April 22, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Perseverance of the Saints”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I think this little catchphrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading. It suggests that the perseverance is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. … So I prefer the term the preservation of the saints, because the process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God.
^ Boettner, Loraine. “The Perseverance of the Saints”. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.