BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bling

Member
Patman, I know you think I am wrong and I understand that, but just saying I am wrong and repeating your conclusion, does not help me develop another logical alternative (maybe even your conclusion). I have repeatedly asked questions about your assumptions and support with no answers. I do have logic, observations and scripture to support my logical alternative. Am I to assume there is no support other then your feelings about the way things work and who God is? Just because my ideas (and these are not necessarily your interpretation of my ideas) do not agree with your conclusion does not make them wrong.

I have tried to explain why things happened and are happening and it has nothing to do with S.T. or O.V. and everything to do with man’s objective. You say the objective is “God wants a relationship with man” and I agree with that but want it defined, because people have relationships with the pet and even their car. From what I am reading, I think God has defined that relationship as Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' And if all is at least the vast majority, then what ever else you are doing must include as a major part this Godly type love of God.

The objective determines, why Christ must go to the cross, why Satan roams the earth, why Adam and Eve would sin, why all adult mature humans will sin, why there are tragedies in this world, why the Garden, and why God does what He does.

To just keep saying, “the future is unknown”, does not explain any of these why’s unless you can logically put it together, with scripture, and giving some logical explanations to the questions that arise. I am not seeing the scripture or the answers to the questions.
 

bling

Member
Originally Posted by patman
You keep talking about our choices and that God "allowed" us to fall. And you know that I agree that God allowed it to happen. RobE came out and said what You are trying to say, that God caused it to happen.
Quit trying to put words in my mouth, allowing us to continue to live on earth and mature will result in our sinning. Now do you say it will not? Man can go through maturity and not sin?

Originally Posted by patman
I site this to support my claims:
BLING at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=143274&page=8
"God’s will is controlling our action and God’s will is controlling His action and His desires. God’s objective is to help us fulfill our objective. We are to fulfill our objective of Godly love for God and others, and God will quench His desires to help us fulfill that objective. The big difference is God already has Godly love and we are trying to develop it."

I think that sums up your ideas. That God is controlling our actions, and our actions are to develop Godly love.

You also said that God allowing for sin to happen was necessary to develop love. And this is true. I agree. Why? Because how can something that isn't free to choose for itself able to give true love?

But your statement that "God’s will is controlling our action..." contradicts that completely. If God's will is controlling our actions, we are not sinning, but God is.
Your interpretation of what I was trying to communicate and maybe my poor wording appears to be in contrast. I am glade you realized your interpretation was in contrast to everything else I said. I was talking about devout Christians being compels us: 2 Cor. 5: 13If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. I am also trying to make a distinction between what God desires (to be taking care of us in the Garden) and what we need to fulfill the objective (God’s will). Our objective God set forth control what righteous activities we can do. This is not to say we will personally chose to do something that displeases God. I have said before I prefer one on one conversations to clear up miss conceptions, but these threads can work, if we do not jump to the wrong conclusions especially if the conclusion is in contrast to what else has been said.
 

RobE

New member
patman said:
Just a note.

When ever I said that God wouldn't design us to sin, I am not saying that we are incapable of sin. I am saying that God wouldn't design in such a way that we are going to sin with absoluteness.

We have freewill. God designed us with the ability to choose. But he did not design us to fall, but designed us to choose if we fall or not. It is not his choice but ours.

Sin is not required, it is a possibility. And it is a possibility that had Adam wanted, he could have done with out sin forever. Rob and Bling assert that sin had to happen and the fall was a part of the entire plan. I utterly reject it.

You utterly reject the facts then.

Facts:

1) God made man with the ability to sin knowing eventually one would.
2) God put the tree of knowledge in the garden.
3) God put Satan in the garden and saw Satan tempt man(and could intervene).
4) God told man not to eat of the tree instead of not putting a tree there to begin with.
5) God made man in God's image.


Genesis 3:22

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

God didn't guard the Tree of Life, why?

God didn't force man to sin, but knew He would. Period.

It's in man's design to sin in that man can choose freely. God designed man and man's free choice. Is God responsible? Only if the choice wasn't truly free.

Patman said:
Designing Adam to sin and allowing Adam to sin are two different things.

And again I say that designing Adam to sin makes the designer a sinner. Sorry, but that is how it is.

And again I say that designing Adam with the ability to sin does not make the designer a sinner. Just Adam. What you have to ask yourself is why the designer designed a man that could sin and then put that man in the garden with the snake, tree, and devil? Is this a Good or Bad reason?

My answer: Jesus Christ. Do you know the question?

Friends,

RobE
 

bling

Member
Originally Posted by patman
Bling, as promised, I read through your other debate. I feel very embarrassed for you. No one is buying what you are saying.And, bling, as it turns out, I am right. Your ideas only promote evil.
I have seem the Lord have, what I consider, only limited success while working with atheist and agnostics. I rarely get into a truly theological discussion and try to keep it to more of a witness (what He has done for me and others) and I have been with others that seem to come across better. What I do think and what I do want to do is be prepared to answer a truly sincere searching atheist (which may not be on this board) with the answers to why, how and when. I am hoping this debate will sharpen my sword so to speak. They have four main questions that are not being or are poorly being answered by Christians. From the answers I have heard from most Christians, I can see why agnostics and atheist are not buying in. They have helped me understand where they are coming from, the hurdles in my ideas, and how they might be approached. I did not approach the debate looking for alternatives, but they did increase my understanding, and I do not think they were looking for alternatives to their ideas. They have said my approach is different and not one they had heard, and they did not come up with a deal killer for me.
Originally Posted by patman
Bling said on another post:
"God minupulates Satan to do the bad stuff that will create good results, for good people."

"God does not cause the suffering of innocent people, God allows Satan to do that. It is the only way I see to do it and I do not see away God could do it without allowing the suffering."

So is God allowing it or doing the manipulating?
I think in the case of Job, God manipulated Satan by lowering the hedge around Job and allowing Satan to attack Job, as God would know Satan would do. You suggested Satan might have manipulate to go after Eve and Adam in the Garden and at that time I said God controls the limits of Satan and Satan can not put anything over on God.
Originally Posted by patman
Bling, the best answer is that the future is open. You are going in a completely off direction from the Bible. I hope it will get to you if I say it one last time:
How does an open future, answer the question, “Why God allowed a small child to be born diseased, hurting, or in pain?” How does a child being born with a defect help human free will? Are you saying God does not know the child will be born with a problem? Are you saying God can not do anything about it and if so why?

Originally Posted by patman
Jeremiah 4:22
“ For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, And they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge
.”

What are you trying to say here?
 

bling

Member
Originally Posted by patman
Bling, in words, you say "sin is bad." But in message, you are calling it good and necessary. No matter how much you saw sin is bad, your message will always say otherwise.

Every single person on that thread said it in verious ways. It was only 8 pages long, I read it all, and they all saw your message was promoting sin. I am sorry, but you are preaching the necessity of sin.

How is that different from me? I too say God allowed us to sin, but I do not say sin was necessary. We could have resisted sin and still know what Godly love is. According to you, no one would know Godly love without sin.
A women going through child birth is bad and I would love to relieve that pain and risk, but I would not abort the child to keep the women from having the pain. The birthing of the child is not the wonderful child and hopefully the child will not carry and should not carry any of the hardship of birth into it’s life. Sin is bad, but there is one child (God’s loving forgiveness) that can come from that sin. Unfortunately, people go though the pain and don’t produce a baby or they keep going though the same pain for the same baby.


Originally Posted by patman
So for my message, sin is only an option, not a requirement, for love.

Your message, sin is a requirement for love.
Let me ask you, “do you feel Godly type love for humans is made easier by experiencing God’s love in being forgiven with Jesus going to the cross for our sins and baring those sins for us or would it be easier to develop Godly love without that experience?”

If Godly love requires a thought out decision to love with real opportunities to not love (requiring a degree of maturity) then no human has or will ever develop Godly love without sinning.

Originally Posted by patman
Well the logical conclusin to your message is "if sin leads to love, let us sin more" because "love is good"
Thus, you are calling evil good.
Sin does not produce love. Forgiveness of sin can produce love, but to go on sinning can destroy that love. Do you believe forgiveness should produce love?

Originally Posted by patman
O.V.'ers do not run into this problem ever concerning the creation story. S.V'ers can't run from it. And that is why O.V. is worth considering.
The O.V.’ers attach no benefit to: the love being shown in forgiving, the love in Christ’s sacrifices, the love that grows by helping those in need, the example Christ gives us in how to live in this world, the indwelling Spirit, the Church, the Bible stories, working to produce limited resources to share with those in need, and our rest in heaven. All these were not needed, all these were added as a result of sin, and we would be better off without them and just remained sinless by our own personal initiative and let God serve us.
 

patman

Active member
Lee

Lee

lee_merrill said:
Hi Pat,


Is this the promise you are referring to?

Deuteronomy 9:3 "Know therefore today that it is the Lord your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and destroy them quickly, just as the Lord has spoken to you."

But if we do not know what the Lord is referring to as what he "has spoken to you," we can't know if this is conditional. And the Septuagint doesn't even have "quickly," so this word "quickly" is not absolutely certain here.

And in the translation above indeed, it seems there is a condition, "so that you may drive them out," not "so that you will drive them out."

Where is there an unconditional promise made about driving them out?

Joshua 3:10 This is how you will know that the living God is among you and that he will certainly drive out before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites.

God will do it, most certainly! And he did, those nations are not there any more.


So then this was conditional? You must show that this was unconditional, in order to make your conclusion here that God changed his mind, and then we have to ask, why did God not think Moses would pray for God to pardon them?

Moses had prayed for God to pardon them time and again, why did God not think that Moses would pray again, this time?


Certainly, but saying "I will certainly do this," and then not doing it, saying "This is sure," when it isn't, and you know that it isn't certain, is not good. It is lying, and God cannot lie, he will not speak falsely.

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

And God will not be there, but he would be, if he lies, "all liars" will be there...

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, I don't understand how you are missing the point.

Let's start with the accusations that I am presenting God as lying.

You said a few things here that almost made sense:
Certainly, but saying "I will certainly do this," and then not doing it, saying "This is sure," when it isn't, and you know that it isn't certain, is not good. It is lying, and God cannot lie, he will not speak falsely.


I am just going to clean up your paragraph and paraphrase using your words. I am not going to twist them around, it should be exactly what you think with out all the words :)

saying "this is sure," when it isn't is lying.

Reading this very liberally, yeah, kinda sorta, I agree. But I must add emphasis.

Saying "this is sure," when it isn't is lying. You need to really note those words "when it isn't" because they are they key.

When God said "He will do this" at the time, he was going to do it given the circumstances. When God said "He will not do this" At the time, it was true, as it was different circumstances. This is not a lie, when you understand that God's promises to do good to a nation are circumstantial, depending on that nation's deeds.

Trick is that the above is ONLY truth when there is no future knowledge of that event.

Lee, I know you are either not following me or disagreeing, so I gotta show you even with conditional promises, a 100% future knowing God would be lying in these verse:

"Behold, I am driving out from before you the..... [various nations]"

"I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’”

Jud 3:1-6 Now these are the nations which the LORD left,".....[same various nations]

I just want you to think about this:

If God knows the future, and promises A will happen if circumstances A1 continue, and knows circumstances A1 will not continue, what he promised is meaningless and untruthful, as he also knows A1 will not happen, thus neither will A.

It may not fit your one definition of a lie, but it is a lie also. Just in a different form. It is like a rigged bet. Promising something in return for something else, knowing you won't have to go through with it, is a lie.

Here is a good example:

If I am the ultimate weather guy, and I know it will snow tomorrow, and I tell you "If you mow my grass tomorrow, I'll give you a Mustang GT," am I telling you the truth?

Sorry Lee, it is still a lie. Only the non-existance of the absolute future knowledge allow for this situation to not be a Lie for God.

Unfulfilled prophecies
I think you are ignoring the details in order to satisfy you belief that these prophecies were fulfilled

Lee, who cares if they are there today or not, the question is why are they not there? Did Israel drive them out? Were they conquered by Israel? Was Israel's national boarders expanded when they took them over?

The gradual blending of one nation into another is not what God told them he would do. The idea that a completely different nation would come in and defeat one of the said nations is not what God said he would do.

The end result is not all we can be concerned with in proclaiming a prophecy to be fulfilled. We also must consider "Did end result happen as a result of the events specified?"

Example:

End result, no Canaanites

Cause: Israel Killed them all in war.

That's what the prophecy said.

What really happened? They merged with Israel and Babylon took over their nations too.

End result? No Canninites

Prophecy fulfilled? NOPE. Only half of it was.
 

patman

Active member
Bling and RobE

Bling and RobE

Two people have never confused me more in theological expression than you two.

Design - (1)a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made (2) purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object

Allow - (1)admit (an event or activity) as legal or acceptable (2) give the necessary time or opportunity for

RobE, you blatantly said that man was Designed to sin. Then you say he was allowed to sin. They are just contradictions.

Even I say we were allowed to sin. I do need to use the word designed anywhere, because it implies that God "purposed, planned, or intended " for man to sin.

God didn't protect the tree of life because he did not have a reason to. Adam could eat of it when ever he needed his life restored before he fell and it was ok. It was only after the fall that God had a reason to protect it. Had God anticipated the fall, the tree wouldn't have even been in the garden, or it would have and he foresaw him not caring about it if this and this and this happened, so he was destined to not eat of it anyway (foreordination creeps into simple foresight again).

I said before that God realized that some men might sin, but not all of them. Just like some of the angel's sinned, but not all of them. That is why he planned for Christ to provide the way out through his death. It was likely to happen sooner or later, but it just so happened it was sooner than later. That's how your points against me exist in my theology.




Bling, you didn't say designed on here like RobE did, but you flirt with saying it in the necessity of sin being the center of your message of why sin is here.

God didn't manipulate Satan to get Job to sin. Bottom line there.

You expressly said that God essentially, USED Satan to cause all the sin. I think you say that so you can know he didn't have to do it first hand, that way GOD didn't sin, it was really SATAN. Forget that God pushed the pulled the trigger, it was the BULLET that did the killing. And you think by doing that God isn't a sinner too under this message?

And I guess my temptation verses aren't enough for you to drop that idea all together?

You are really caught up in today's circumstances. So caught up, you can't understand how it was ever meant to be another way.

As a result of Adam's action, ever may will sin. We were not created to sin, sin was not a necessary part of our lives, it is just here 'cause we inherited the "flesh" from Adam. Just because this is how things are now, does not mean that is how things were then.

Had Adam not sinned, his decedents would not be prone to sin. They could have resisted as long as they wanted. God didn't make us weak to sin to ensure that we did it.

SIN IS, again, doing wrong knowingly. The Tree gave knowledge to Adam as to what evil was. That knowledge we have to this day, and I explained a long time ago why. Had Adam not ate of that tree, we would not have received that knowledge like we do today.

Bling, you ask me to explain thing that I already have.

maybe you missed those too.. I don't know.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/search.php?searchid=95932

Just look for all the one's addressed to you and read them again, please?

BTW, If you wanna know about Baby killing, go to that other forum. There's lots of chatter about that there.



Wow. I am getting really tired of this.

You both are going around and around accusing God of requiring sin to be in our lives so we could love him.

That sentence says it all to me. I am just sad you are OK with saying such things :(
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi Pat,

patman said:
Saying "this is sure," when it isn't is lying. You need to really note those words "when it isn't" because they are the key.

When God said "He will do this" at the time, he was going to do it given the circumstances.
Well, I mean an unconditional statement was meant in saying "this is sure." And God promised unconditionally that he would drive them out, so then if God said that this was certain, when it wasn't, and God knew it wasn't! Then that is lying.

If God knows the future, and promises A will happen if circumstances A1 continue, and knows circumstances A1 will not continue, what he promised is meaningless and untruthful, as he also knows A1 will not happen, thus neither will A.
Unless you also say that the condition will not be met! Now the condition of driving them out quickly was, I would say, faithfulness on Israel's part, now do we read of a prediction of whether Israel would be faithful? Yes, we do:

Deuteronomy 31:27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!

So this was not deception here, the Lord said the condition would not be fulfilled. Now we may apply this to other situations where God gives a condition, and say that also in these instances, God can know if the condition will be fulfilled or not, and thus he is speaking from our perspective, not his.

As in when a dad asks his kid "Now which way will we turn from here to go to Grandma's house?" The dad knows which way they will be turning, but here he is speaking from his kid's perspective, as if it was unsure.

End result, no Canaanites

Cause: Israel Killed them all in war.

That's what the prophecy said.
Actually! God said he would drive them out:

Deuteronomy 9:5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

What really happened? They merged with Israel and Babylon took over their nations too.
Certainly some Caananites became Israelites, such as Rahab, and Uriah (the Hittite!), and Obed-Edom the Gittite (Goliath was a Gittite). But those who remained devoted to their pagan gods and pagan society, they did not merge with the Israelites, and they are not there today. Now Babylon conquered Israel, but Israel did not therefore become Babylonian! Israel maintained its national and ethnic identity, and they remain Jewish today, settled in their homeland, as the Bible predicted, without Philistines or other Caananites there. As the Bible predicted.

Isaiah 14:31-32 Wail, O gate! Howl, O city! Melt away, all you Philistines! A cloud of smoke comes from the north, and there is not a straggler in its ranks. What answer shall be given to the envoys of that nation? "The Lord has established Zion, and in her his afflicted people will find refuge."

God bless you,
Lee
 

bling

Member
Originally Posted by patman
Two people have never confused me more in theological expression than you two.

Design - (1)a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made (2) purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object

Allow - (1)admit (an event or activity) as legal or acceptable (2) give the necessary time or opportunity for
Patman, I thought you were spending all your time with the infidels. So, are you saying, “God gives humans the time and opportunity to sin”(allows sin) and then what? I am saying it does not matter that God knows they will sin, like He knows all mature adults today will sin.

Originally Posted by patman
I said before that God realized that some men might sin, but not all of them. Just like some of the angel's sinned, but not all of them. That is why he planned for Christ to provide the way out through his death. It was likely to happen sooner or later, but it just so happened it was sooner than later. That's how your points against me exist in my theology.
You say sooner or later and I say God is smart enough, given the conditions of the Garden to understand it would be from the beginning and realize it would have to be that way to fulfill the objective.

Originally Posted by patman
Bling, you didn't say designed on here like RobE did, but you flirt with saying it in the necessity of sin being the center of your message of why sin is here.

Originally Posted by patman
God didn't manipulate Satan to get Job to sin. Bottom line there.
We can talk about Job latter we are really far behind in questions!

Originally Posted by patman
You expressly said that God essentially, USED Satan to cause all the sin. I think you say that so you can know he didn't have to do it first hand, that way GOD didn't sin, it was really SATAN. Forget that God pushed the pulled the trigger, it was the BULLET that did the killing. And you think by doing that God isn't a sinner too under this message?
And I guess my temptation verses aren't enough for you to drop that idea all together?

You are really caught up in today's circumstances. So caught up, you can't understand how it was ever meant to be another way.
I have repeatedly try to get you to explain it to me, but I am not looking for your conclusions which you have repeated many times, I do want your assumptions, and your support, and how my logic, assumptions and support are flawed, so I can make a change!

Originally Posted by patman
As a result of Adam's action, ever may will sin. We were not created to sin, sin was not a necessary part of our lives, it is just here 'cause we inherited the "flesh" from Adam. Just because this is how things are now, does not mean that is how things were then.
Where does it say Adam had different flesh? Where does it say Adam and Eve were differ types of people from us? Is sin today a necessary part of the mature adult’s life. I see Adam and Eve as excellent representatives for all humans, physically they could last forever with the help of the tree of life, brain capacity was the best, and they were trained (programmed) up to being adults by God.

Originally Posted by patman
Had Adam not sinned, his decedents would not be prone to sin. They could have resisted as long as they wanted. God didn't make us weak to sin to ensure that we did it.
Where does scripture say that? I see from the Garden with the best human representatives we could have, falling to the temptation of coveting and sinning. The Bible gives us the motive specifically for Eve which sounds just like motives I have used for sinning. Am I reading that wrong?

Originally Posted by patman
SIN IS, again, doing wrong knowingly. The Tree gave knowledge to Adam as to what evil was. That knowledge we have to this day, and I explained a long time ago why. Had Adam not ate of that tree, we would not have received that knowledge like we do today.
The knowledge of sin is written on our hearts and is also in the law. The knowledge of good and evil, I have not found scripture saying, it came down to us through Adam and /or Eve eating the fruit, can you help me?


Originally Posted by patman
Bling, you ask me to explain thing that I already have.
maybe you missed those too.. I don't know.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...?searchid=95932
Just look for all the one's addressed to you and read them again, please?
There are a ton of questions you have not addressed, especially if they had scripture or asked for your scripture support. I do think I might be a little to much for you with questions, but you are wanting me very strongly to except your conclusions. I would be happy to change if, you can give the logical support and assumptions with explanations to the questions surrounding them and the issues with my support and assumptions. Help me at least with the weaknesses in my assumptions:
My first assumption is Godly love is our objective, so:
Does the command: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” Still apply to us today? And was it always understood to apply to everyone? And if not understood was it always God’s desire?
And if it does since it is “all”, how can I do other stuff without making Loving God a big part of it?
My second assumption is: Christ defines this Godly love with everything He says and does. Christ also commands us to love others like He has loved us to add even more fuel to the fire. Like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son and Paul defines it in 1 Cor. 13. Is it something less then these?
My third assumption is: The Bible tells us Eve’s motive for sinning and it is not “wanting out”: Gen 3 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. Am I reading something into this scripture? I have found only this being called a sin like other sins, so how do I make something more out of it or start weighs her sin as greater then my sin? Or your sins great then my sins?

(Now I know God for civil matters for the earthly Kingdom of the Jews had different punishments, put when it was of the heart type sin not involving others directly, they had no punishment for coveting, lusting, or hating their brother other then it was sin, so were these little sins? Civil earthly wrong doing are also sin, but what the Jews had to do or what had to be done to those wrong doers did not do anything about the sin, for a sin is against God and requires Christ to bare them no matter how “small?”. Paul said, to break one command is to break all the commands. Jesus also came along and took the sins that were not considered by the Jews at that time as significant and made them punishable by death under the Jewish law. Can we then equate the Jewish law punishments on earth for wrong doing with the price for sin?)

I will stop here for now, just 3 for now.



Originally Posted by patman
You both are going around and around accusing God of requiring sin to be in our lives so we could love him.
That sentence says it all to me. I am just sad you are OK with saying such things
47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
And
1 John 1: 8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Godly love is a very deep type of love that God has ordered us to have with all Heart, soul, mind and strength.

Could any mature adult human after Adam and Eve left the Garden claim not to have sinned without being a liar?

I am saying God would have realized that from the beginning. God could easily realize without any foreknowledge that we would all be in debt to Him and not be able to pay that debt. With forgiveness of our huge debt comes great love. Adam and Eve before they sinned had no debt to be forgiven of.
 

patman

Active member
Lee, you said a lot of interesting stuff that I should probably rebut, but this thing you said stopped me.

lee_merrill said:
Well, I mean an unconditional statement was meant in saying "this is sure." And God promised unconditionally that he would drive them out, so then if God said that this was certain, when it wasn't, and God knew it wasn't! Then that is lying.
......
Actually! God said he would drive them out

OK, OK, OK, OK - shew- This is going be hard to put in words, but if I say this right, then I hope you will FINALLY see how wrong you are about God's extent of future knowledge.

God said HE would do the driving out. The condition was obedience for a swift driving out. Thus, the Condition was not met and the driving out was slow. And according to that logic, indeed God did what he said he would do.

EXCEPT FOR WHEN HE SAID HE WOULDN'T DO IT AT ALL ALSO

Jud 2:3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’”

Jud 2:20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.”

Joshua 23:13
know for certain that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations from before you. But they shall be snares and traps to you, and scourges on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land which the LORD your God has given you.

If God knows the future, he can't honestly say he will do both different things. Either he will do it or he won't. So instead of lying by saying he will do something and then not do it, AND know he wasn't going to do it, he is lying by saying he won't do something when he knows he will.

Having 100% future knowledge taken out of the above is the only way we can truly say "God didn't lie."

God Bless you too, Lee.
-Pat

P.S.
You said "Actually! God said he would drive them out:"

Incorrect. It is as I said it originally...

NOTE, ALL INSTANCES OF YOU REVER TO ISRAEL

Exodus 23:31
And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea, Philistia, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Numbers 33:52
then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images, and demolish all their high places;

Deuteronomy 9:3
Therefore understand today that the LORD your God is He who goes over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the LORD has said to you.

Israel never did the driving out of all these nations. Babylon is responsible at least for the fall of the Canaanites.
 

patman

Active member
bling said:
have repeatedly try to get you to explain it to me, but I am not looking for your conclusions which you have repeated many times, I do want your assumptions, and your support, and how my logic, assumptions and support are flawed, so I can make a change!

Bling, you will change if I show you are wrong? OK. I would do the same if I were proven wrong. Wise men love being corrected, and it is good to strive for wisdom.

Bling, I have gone for the throat on any idea that suggest God sinned by making it a necessary part of fulfilling objectives to love. And I showed you scripture proving God can't even tempt. Will you shed any belief you once had about sin being necessary to bring about love?

Bling, I never disagreed that forgiveness of sin doesn't inspire love, and the more forgiveness, the more inspiration. But sin doesn't bring about love, forgiveness does. No where in that train of thought should we ever derive that sin is needed for love. Nor can we say that with out forgiveness we cannot know love. It is just one way to know love, one of the many.


You ask for scripture for:

"Where does it say Adam had different flesh?"

"Had Adam not sinned, his decedents would not be prone to sin."

"I have not found scripture saying, it came down to us through Adam and /or Eve eating the fruit "


I think we can answer these all together. OK, we must first know what eating of the fruit did:

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. "

Gen 3:22 "Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—"

So plainly, eating the fruit gives them knowledge of Good and Evil.


Now we must know where sin comes from.

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The verse talks about how Adam's disobedience brought death to all and how Jesus' obedience brought grace to all. We learn sin came to everyone because Adam sinned.

"...but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

The word "imputed" means ascribed to someone. Sin, where there is no law, is not ascribed to the sinner.

But there was no law when Adam sinned. Moses was years away, no law.. right? No, there was only one law.

Gen 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

The law was do not eat of that tree. Well no one else did after Adam.

So if that was the only law, that would mean until the days of Moses, Adam was the only sinner, right? But death comes from sin. And people still died, right? So they had to be sinning? What law did they break?

"14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam"

Why? What was their sin? No law, no sin can be imputed, right?

It turns out there is another law, and a way to sin without knowing the law of Moses.

Romans 2
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them).

There is a law for anyone who doesn't have the law, written in their hearts. It is their conscience, that little voice inside, telling them what is good and bad. Even though someone may not have the Bible and the Law, they still have their conscience, and they still go against it, and they still sin. And then they die.

So if you have no conscience about something, are you imputed for that sin if it were a sin? If you find out afterwards it was a sin, you are responsible for it. If you are ignorant of the law you are not.

Romans 7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law.8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

knowing the law is an oppertunity for sin to produce desire, and desire is what gives birth to temptation, speaking from experience. And Sin comes out of temptation.

James 1
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

What causes us to sin? The flesh, I.E. our bodies' desires and our other earthly desires as well:

Galatians 5:17
For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,


Conclusion
--------
We sin because we have the flesh, which is earthly desires (i.e.Sexual desires, Love of Money, Love of Power, and other desires).

Desires lead to temptations and temptation leads to sin. Sin leads to death.

Sin produces all manner of evil desire by the knowledge of the law.

Knowledge of the law is inherited from Adam, who ate the tree that gave us knowledge of good and evil, a conscience, by eating the tree. For through one man, sin was introduced to the world.

Now everyone has a law in their heart, and that law is designed to keep us from sinning. But desires leading to temptations result in sin, and that to death.
--------

Why are things like they are?

His invisible attributes are those of love, doing right and good, being powerful, being just. And from creation, Adam, and everyone else, understood those. But instead of appreciating God for those things, they instead sought their own wisdom and desires. With their wisdom of good and evil, they thought they were wise, but they were fools. They ended up perverting what God meant for good and used it for evil. So God let them have their sins, that they loved so much.

Romans 1:
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions...........


God gave all his creation the ability to understand him. But the world would rather have it their own way. God intended the world to be with him, but instead they used that good and meant it for evil.

I will stop here. This is a small start, I hope you are beginning to see where and why I say the things I do.

I hope this helps, Blling.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi Pat,

patman said:
God said HE would do the driving out. The condition was obedience for a swift driving out.
God certainly did say he would drive them out:

Deuteronomy 9:5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

And not because of their righteousness, so the behavior of the Israelites does not seem to be a condition for this promise, but we do read that a reason being because of the Canaanite's wickedness, so if the Canaanites had repented (some of them did, as in Rahab), they would not have been destroyed.

But we do not read of any repentance on the part of the Canaanite nations, instead, we read more prophecies of judgment:

Zephaniah 2:5 Woe to you who live by the sea, O Kerethite people; the word of the Lord is against you, O Canaan, land of the Philistines. "I will destroy you, and none will be left."

Zechariah 9:6-7 Foreigners will occupy Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. I will take the blood from their mouths, the forbidden food from between their teeth. Those who are left will belong to our God and become leaders in Judah, and Ekron will be like the Jebusites.

So I would expect that this is unconditional, only those who repent and belong to the Lord will be spared, which would seem to mean them leaving their nation, as Rahab and Uriah did.

Jud 2:3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’

Jud 2:20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.”

Joshua 23:13
know for certain that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations from before you. But they shall be snares and traps to you, and scourges on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land which the LORD your God has given you.
Certainly "I will no longer drive them out" mean this process will stop. Does it mean it won't ever resume, though?

If God knows the future, he can't honestly say he will do both different things.
I agree, I hold that "will no longer do X" doesn't mean "I will never again do X." Saying "I will no longer go to the gym" doesn't mean I will never go to the gym again.

But how is it that God is not lying, if he says unconditionally that X will happen, knowing that it might not happen?

Blessings,
Lee
 

bling

Member
Originally Posted by patman
Bling, I have gone for the throat on any idea that suggest God sinned by making it a necessary part of fulfilling objectives to love. And I showed you scripture proving God can't even tempt. Will you shed any belief you once had about sin being necessary to bring about love?
I know God can not tempt anyone and He is not tempting Eve or Adam, Satan will do that. God can allow the situation to exist that can produce Godly love and yet also produce sin without causing the sin or sinning in doing so. Man has taken every good thing God has created and with the help of Satan sinned with it.

I never said sin brings about Godly love. Do you agree with: Sin creates the opportunity for forgiveness and if forgiveness is accepted brings about love?


Originally Posted by patman
Bling, I never disagreed that forgiveness of sin doesn't inspire love, and the more forgiveness, the more inspiration. But sin doesn't bring about love, forgiveness does. No where in that train of thought should we ever derive that sin is needed for love. Nor can we say that with out forgiveness we cannot know love. It is just one way to know love, one of the many.
Can we say, today: a person has to accept forgiveness before they can begin to have a sacrificial, selfless, all consuming, forgiving, serving, thought out, decision type love? If you can then where do you get it from? Who besides Christ had that type love before they were forgiven or committed to God’s forgiving their sins (as in the O.T.).

Originally Posted by patman
God gave all his creation the ability to understand him. But the world would rather have it their own way. God intended the world to be with him, but instead they used that good and meant it for evil.

I will stop here. This is a small start, I hope you are beginning to see where and why I say the things I do.

I hope this helps, Blling.
You, have given me the scripture on this subject you want to use and that is great. I had forgotten you take the stand and just quickly clarify is it “sin is only sin if we know it to be sin.” or “is sin is sin but we are only held accountable for the sins we know are sins.” I think it is the latter.
So the different flesh of Adam, you are talking about is this conscience that is the product of the fruit that came to all the decedents of Adam, right?
Adam’s sin is called an offence and a transgression the same as our sins are called an offence and a transgression.
The Bible says as you quoted:
The free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Does this not sound like the free gift came from many sins?
What all is included in that free gift?
Does it appear god is pleased to give us this free gift in spite of the sins.
Would the free gift have come without sin and if so how and how much do you want the free gift?

Are Adam’s decedents just prone to sin or will they all sin?
From: Romans 1:
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
It sounds to me the Bible is lumping Adam with most other early sinners, and not making Adam’s sin anything more then what a lot of people were doing.
For the most part, I am agreeing with what you are saying, but there is a lot of support for some of my assumptions here.

You draw the conclusion for the awful world before the flood and say man was wanting to “have it their own way”, which is true for it seems most humans, but it was not true for Abel and it was not the motive of at least Eve’sfirst sin.

I would like to hear your take on my first three assumption in post #529.
 

RobE

New member
Patrick,

What's position on doing a thing and allowing a thing to happen.

I said before that God realized that some men might sin, but not all of them. Just like some of the angel's sinned, but not all of them. That is why he planned for Christ to provide the way out through his death. It was likely to happen sooner or later, but it just so happened it was sooner than later. That's how your points against me exist in my theology.

How would that relate to tree, serpent, devil, man.
 

RobE

New member
RobE said:
Patrick,

What's your position on doing a thing vs. allowing a thing to happen.
How would that relate to tree, serpent, devil, man.

I have time to submit an adequate post now. Let's examine two situations.

1)God sees Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge and allows him to eat from it. Why?

2)God foresees Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge and creates Adam knowing Adam's going to eat from it. Why?

Open Theism: It's part of God's plan to allow Adam free choices(because freely given love is true love). God was hoping Adam wouldn't eat it; but was ready if Adam did eat it --- through Jesus, the back up plan.

Traditional Christianity: It's part of God's plan to allow Adam free choices(because freely given love is true love). God knew Adam would eat it and planned Adam's salvation through Jesus, the plan.

All men fall short of the glory of God.

James 1
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

1 Peter 1:22-24 (New International Version)

22Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. 23For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24For,
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,


John 3 said:
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again

Adam could not enter into heaven on his own. The purpose of creation was Jesus. This is the answer......

John3 said:
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Do you know why the fall was in God's plan yet?

John 12 said:
23Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be.

Your Friend in Christ,

Rob
 

patman

Active member
Lee

Lee

lee_merrill said:
Certainly "I will no longer drive them out" mean this process will stop. Does it mean it won't ever resume, though?
If God knows the future, he can't honestly say he will do both different things.
I agree, I hold that "will no longer do X" doesn't mean "I will never again do X." Saying "I will no longer go to the gym" doesn't mean I will never go to the gym again.

Lee, you do me proud. I am glad you said what you said below:

Certainly "I will no longer drive them out" mean this process will stop. Does it mean it won't ever resume, though?

This however is really grasping.

I hold that "will no longer do X" doesn't mean "I will never again do X."

never - to do no more, to stop forever. to do no longer

It's the same thing.

If God knew the future.... wouldn't he not even say "no longer," because it wasn't true at all? And those words do not have any > * < beside of it. No small print anywhere I can see.

As for "whom" was going to do the "driving out," would it not be correct to say the original intent was "who" = God AND Israel BOTH, as a TEAM?

God did drive out many of those nations, but Israel dropped the ball in a huge. Babylon ended up picking it back up in some cases. The outcome may have been the same, but the well stated method changed. Had God known that would be the future outcome, he wouldn't have said otherwise.

AND where those nations left, others took their place.

And even if "no longer" and "never again" didn't mean the same thing (yeah right) you still have the same problem about conditional prophecies and God's honesty.

Had God known with 100% certainty the circumstances for fulfilling a prophecy would fail, and he promised he would do something had those circumstances been met, God knew he wouldn't have to keep that promise.

I just watched SAW tonight. I hated it BTW. But anyway, the "bad guy" never actually killed anyone. He found ways for them to kill themselves.

Again, it is like I were the worlds best weather man, and knew 100% that it would snow tomorrow. And I tell you that if you mow my grass tomorrow, I'll give you whatever you want.

But to make it more like the situation at hand, it is like I gave you a car and promised free repairs. And all you had to do to keep it and the repairs was mow the grass tomorrow. Only thing is I knew with 100% certainty that it was going to snow tomorrow, and you didn't.

Tomorrow comes, and you don't mow my grass. I decide not to take all the car away, but I'll stop fixing it, I'll take away the tires, and the anti-theft system.

You might be able to beg me to put new tires on later by mowing the grass next week... but either way, I lied to you.

God doesn't know the future with 100% certainty, thus the above doesn't happen.
 

patman

Active member
bling said:
I never said sin brings about Godly love. Do you agree with: Sin creates the opportunity for forgiveness and if forgiveness is accepted brings about love?
bling, I don't know that I would put it that exact way, but I agree with the essence of that sentence.

Do you agree with this?

Sin is not required to develop love, even Agape/Godly love.

And do you agree with this?

Love is made deeper by those who are forgiven more?

And

We should not strive for deeper love by sinning more?

And

God would not create our world such that it required sin, because even though the forgiveness that might occur from that sin would mean more love for that particular person, it is not a goal he should undertake because the sin is still bad.

AND

Your message does say that sin was required to develop agape love. I suggest you change from that or find a better way to word it. Everyone in the other form thinks you are preaching the benefits of sin ( i.e. the forgiveness that MIGHT happen from it) were the reasons we have a world like we do.

Instead, you should say that sin was never intended, despite grace's benefit.

bling said:
Can we say, today: a person has to accept forgiveness before they can begin to have a sacrificial, selfless, all consuming, forgiving, serving, thought out, decision type love? If you can then where do you get it from? Who besides Christ had that type love before they were forgiven or committed to God’s forgiving their sins (as in the O.T.).

I disagree for the most part. But let me say that Christians have the most perfect love over sinners. But it is not impossible for a sinner to have a godly love. But it is also not possible for a sinner to love God if he remains a sinner.

I think that is where you are getting confused. Sinners can have love in many ways. However, Sin in and of itself is an unloving act towards God. So to remain in sin is to remain in opposition to God, and to not have a good love for him.

Their love for others, however, is possible, and it can be selfless, it can be forgiving, serving, sacrificial, and many other things.

Even Jesus said this:

Matt 7
9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

The thing about Adam, the first man, is that he was not a sinner until he sinned. God created Adam perfect, and Adam, not held back by sin, was able to love God.

Now, we are at a disadvantage because of Adam. For the knowledge of good and evil will evidentially lead to our sin. Not by design, but by fact of life.

Now that we are sinners, how might we love God and his ways if we sin against them? Thank God for grace, justified by Christ, that is for all men for all time, that had they had faith (and at times, followed the law), their love for God is made real.

bling said:
So the different flesh of Adam, you are talking about is this conscience that is the product of the fruit that came to all the decedents of Adam, right?

The term, "the flesh" is used in many different ways in the Bible. In this situation, your assessment is fine.

To put it in my own words, "fleshly desires", is a more fitting word, and those are brought on by knowing good and evil.

bling said:
Adam’s sin is called an offence and a transgression the same as our sins are called an offence and a transgression.
The Bible says as you quoted:
The free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Does this not sound like the free gift came from many sins?
What all is included in that free gift?
Does it appear god is pleased to give us this free gift in spite of the sins.
Would the free gift have come without sin and if so how and how much do you want the free gift?
If you look at that one verse and that's all you take from it, yeah. But you gotta realize that Paul is contrasting what happened in the Garden to what happened on The cross. Adam brought death to all, Christ brought grace. And grace does require sin. Just leave it at that.
bling said:
Are Adam’s decedents just prone to sin or will they all sin?
From: Romans 1:
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Tragically, all who grow up into "adulthood" will sin. BUT not because we require grace for love, because that's how events unfolded themselves.

I think we are trapped in sin because the desires God meant for good sin takes and perverts. And we then sin. I THINK this happened because the descendants of Adam needed the law written in their hearts to survive it in a world without God's blessings.

This Good gift however allows for us to produce sin.
bling said:
You draw the conclusion for the awful world before the flood and say man was wanting to “have it their own way”, which is true for it seems most humans, but it was not true for Abel and it was not the motive of at least Eve’sfirst sin.

I would like to hear your take on my first three assumption in post #529.

Eve's motive was self seeking.

Gen 3:5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Eve wanted her own wisdom. She rejected God's, which told her not to eat, and thought it foolish. She exchanged the truths of God for a lie, just like Romans said. Her and every sinner to follow.

God knew what having the "law of the heart" would to humans who weren't ready. So for the time being, he said not to do it. I however, BELIEVE, that God would eventually let man to eat of the tree when he was ready.

How would he be ready? I don't know. Perhaps spending time with God would ready man in a way we never can know. Adam may have gave up some really cool stuff to have NOW what he would have had LATER had he only trusted.
 

patman

Active member
RobE

RobE

RobE said:
I have time to submit an adequate post now. Let's examine two situations.

1)God sees Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge and allows him to eat from it. Why?

2)God foresees Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge and creates Adam knowing Adam's going to eat from it. Why?

Open Theism: It's part of God's plan to allow Adam free choices(because freely given love is true love). God was hoping Adam wouldn't eat it; but was ready if Adam did eat it --- through Jesus, the back up plan.

Traditional Christianity: It's part of God's plan to allow Adam free choices(because freely given love is true love). God knew Adam would eat it and planned Adam's salvation through Jesus, the plan.

All men fall short of the glory of God.








Adam could not enter into heaven on his own. The purpose of creation was Jesus. This is the answer......



Do you know why the fall was in God's plan yet?



Your Friend in Christ,

Rob

Rob, thanks for your input into your thinking, but it only considers us as we are today, sinners.

Adam was not in need of being born again until he sinned.

Christ's message was not to the healthy but the sick. Had Adam never "got sick" he wouldn't need "a doctor" to "heal him." ( yes, I am doing the little finger thing as I proofread )

Adam was not bound to sin. He just did. And at that moment, he needed savior. Before then, he was perfect, born of God, not flesh.

AND

I hope you can see based on the above, the short-sightedness of the S.V.. By saying God planned the fall and salvation still doesn't excuse God from sin of causing the fall.

AND

Planned and allowed are not the same thing.

Your Friend in Christ,
Pat
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi Pat,

You are skipping my question!

How is God is not lying, if he says unconditionally that X will happen, knowing that it might not happen?

patman said:
Lee: I hold that "will no longer do X" doesn't mean "I will never again do X."

never - to do no more, to stop forever. to do no longer

It's the same thing.

Judges 2:21 I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died.

Sometimes indeed this means "never again." Yet here is the same exact Hebrew expression used in Judges 2:21:

Genesis 32:28 Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

But this doesn't me no one will ever call him Jacob again, God even calls Israel "Jacob" after this:

Exodus 3:6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."

And here is another similar passage:

Judges 10:13 But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you.

But God did save them again afterwards! See verse 16 in this chapter. So this expression can mean either "I will never again" or "I will stop now [and may resume afterwards]."

Had God known with 100% certainty the circumstances for fulfilling a prophecy would fail, and he promised he would do something had those circumstances been met, God knew he wouldn't have to keep that promise.
Yes, that is true, again, just like a dad saying to his son, "Where will we put these spoons in the cupboard?" Knowing full well they will go in the middle cabinet. But that's not lying...

Blessings,
Lee
 

patman

Active member
lee

lee

lee_merrill said:
Hi Pat,

You are skipping my question!

How is God is not lying, if he says unconditionally that X will happen, knowing that it might not happen?

Yes, that is true, again, just like a dad saying to his son, "Where will we put these spoons in the cupboard?" Knowing full well they will go in the middle cabinet. But that's not lying...

Blessings,
Lee

lee, I thought I put it pretty well how God would be lying with 100% foreknowledge under these circumstances, especially.

The main point is that even if the prophecies were conditional and the conditions were not met, with 100% foreknowledge that they would not be met, the promise was really a lie.

And I think you actually found even more instances where God changed his mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top