BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[RobE]

Rob, God didn't say "Uh-Oh," he did have a plan just incase it did happen.

Plan without some idea of what the future would hold? This makes no sense. God was surprised if open theism is true.

And yes, God is realistic, that is why he had that plan. The difference between you and me is that you think every human ever born or ever to exist was designed to need grace. I say every sinner, not every human.

I say that every human is human; and fallable. Or fall-able if you prefer.

You assert that God created/designed man to sin to meet that ends.

No. I say that God designed men to choose and they would inevitably choose wrong.

I say God created every man with a choice and that there are some who did not sin (aborted babies, mentally disabled adults, others who's lives were cut short before sin was born to them). They have no need for the forgiveness offered by the cross. And there are millions of those people. Sin free, flesh free. They could sin if they want in heaven, but many won't.

I disagree with everything said here. All need the cross. Vine and branches. There is no sin in Him.

Just like the countless angels who never sin but are still used and loved by God and love God back. Why would God create all man to fall and only 2/3 of the angels to stand?

Greater is He who does not see and believes than him who sees.

1) Why didn't God wipe Adam out immediately and start over?
Patman: Love.

What does this mean?

2) Why did it take 3,500 years for Jesus to appear and take away the sins of the world?
Patman: Perhaps he would have done it sooner had the flood not been needed first. I would be interested if you would answer the same question. My short answer is because of human resistance.

What about the flood was needed? My answer is that Jesus could have appeared at the end of the age and still taken away the sins of the world. Death is what was overcome at the cross. He took away the sting of sin and rendered it impotent for those that are 'in Him'. Outside of Him death still prevails. Jesus died and descended into Hell for three days.

What does 'human resistance mean?

3) How could Jesus pay for your sins if God didn't know that you were going to exist?
Patman: Because Grace covers all sin. Even future sins and uninvited sins. The death of God the son is justification enough for an infant amount of sin. Any future person who wanted it be cleansed by the blood as the river never runs out.

You're correct in this. Yet you still didn't answer my questions of 'Did Jesus die for you, personally, or just in general.​

Your question 3 is the perfect example of the calvinistic idealism creeping into the SV. I know you do not claim to be calvinist, but this question makes you sound like it.

How? If future knowledge is required for the forgiveness of sins because Jesus literately bore all future past and present sins, that means at that moment sin was forgiven for future sins and those were saved even before they were born.

Those people who were forgiven will without doubt be forgiven, and those who are fallen will forever be.

It's only required for personal forgiveness of sin. Yes, all were saved; some don't take advantage of it. So sad.

In that light, with reguards to your question 1, why doesn't God end everything now since he knows who will fall and who will stand? If you are right, at this moment in time he has what he needs. He knows who will be saved, he has justification for their sins, he could just end it all, recreate everyone in heaven with the memories they need and put those sinners in hell.

Because Him knowing you will exist doesn't mean you already exist. He is patient. And, He wants all those that are His(or choose Him if you prefer).

But with Open Theism the answer is that he is patiently waiting for those who have yet to change because he doesn't know the future actions of those sinners, so he must wait.

With open theism it makes sense that Adam falls, eliminate Adam, and make Steve because there is nothing beyond Adam. It only makes sense if God knows there is going to be a Peter, Patrick, Bling, etc....

Let Adam suffer eternal punishment or have millions(billions) suffer punishment. Why? Because He foresaw your existence, personally, and loves you before you were born. By taking away their suffering(killing Adam), your chance is eliminated.

Thanks,

Rob

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Plan without some idea of what the future would hold? This makes no sense. God was surprised if open theism is true.

I believe God knew some would fall. I don't think God foresaw our current world.

I say that every human is human; and fallable. Or fall-able if you prefer.

I prefer fall-able, but not bound to fall. It is true than some humans died without sin.

No. I say that God designed men to choose and they would inevitably choose wrong.

Rob, you are speaking out of two sides of your face.

First you asked why we open theist accuse the SV of believing a Settled future means a settled fate (because a future knowing God designed us like we are). And we go rounds and rounds and more rounds about that and about how I am wrong...

Then, much later, you say that we were designed to sin.

Now you are saying we were only designed to choose either way?

And you are asking me how it is possible that we choose not to sin when you say we choose too?? Or you don't say it.... Or you kinda say it.

I have received so many mixed messages from you on this.

I say God created every man with a choice and that there are some who did not sin (aborted babies, mentally disabled adults, others who's lives were cut short before sin was born to them). They have no need for the forgiveness offered by the cross. And there are millions of those people. Sin free, flesh free. They could sin if they want in heaven, but many won't.

I disagree with everything said here. All need the cross. Vine and branches. There is no sin in Him.

I am confused as to why you disagree with everything said here. I know the Bible says all have sinned, but it also said all went to John to be baptized. Anytime we use a word like "all" or "everyone" there is an exception. Everyone didn't get Baptized by John... it's just an expression that a lot of people did.

"All have sinned" is an expression too. There are some who have left this world without sin. They are unborn children, young people who never get a chance to understand right and wrong. Grown Adults who struggle with 2 + 2 AND with right and wrong.

Those people enter Heaven with their freewill and without the flesh. They see God. They see Heaven. They see Christ. They know more than any of us because they get to question Noah and Moses.

They hear first hand the story of Gabriel when was there on the first Christmas. They see the nail prints. Some may be insane enough to leave all that, but many others will stay in heaven sin free.

They do not need the Cross to say because they do not need to be justified for sins they didn't commit. They do need God's love, they do need his blessings, but they don't need forgiveness.

1) Why didn't God wipe Adam out immediately and start over?
Patman: Love.

What does this mean?​

It is a broad answer. I have answered this before, but maybe not directly to you.

God is Love. Thus he does what is loving. It is not loving to force people to not sin by holding the very fibers of the universe over their heads. How is that true freewill?

2) Why did it take 3,500 years for Jesus to appear and take away the sins of the world?
Patman: Perhaps he would have done it sooner had the flood not been needed first. I would be interested if you would answer the same question. My short answer is because of human resistance.

What about the flood was needed? My answer is that Jesus could have appeared at the end of the age and still taken away the sins of the world. Death is what was overcome at the cross. He took away the sting of sin and rendered it impotent for those that are 'in Him'. Outside of Him death still prevails. Jesus died and descended into Hell for three days.

What does 'human resistance mean?

People resist God and his blessings through sin and evil. The flood cleansed the world of evil, and that is why it was necessary. After the flood God introduced the law gradually and over time. He started with the death penalty and added to it through time. Men were now much less evil. So now God attempts to bring Christ into the world through the nation of Israel. Again and again they sin and reject God to the point that his being king over them was not fruitful. Time passes accordingly.

Finally, God goes on with the plan for Christ as recorded in history in hopes that Israel was ready. They were not. Now we live in the grace era.

God's plans will come to pass in the end. There will be a kingdom, there will be a new heaven and earth. But in the mean time, because of sin and resistance of God, God waits until he knows all have decided(that is my belief).

3) How could Jesus pay for your sins if God didn't know that you were going to exist?
Patman: Because Grace covers all sin. Even future sins and uninvited sins. The death of God the son is justification enough for an infant amount of sin. Any future person who wanted it be cleansed by the blood as the river never runs out.

You're correct in this. Yet you still didn't answer my questions of 'Did Jesus die for you, personally, or just in general.

Jesus didn't see myself on the cross and know my name as he hung there. But his death was for me, and all in general (for a significant lack of a better way of saying it).

Because Him knowing you will exist doesn't mean you already exist. He is patient. And, He wants all those that are His(or choose Him if you prefer).

If my sins didn't exist on the cross with Jesus neither did I. If I did exist, so did my sins.

This is where the calvinistic view finds its way into your beliefs. If Jesus bore my sins on the cross as in my literal sins, that means I am by fate going to commit them and by fate going to be saved. All by his design too.

After all if he saw me when he created Adam, he saw the sins I would commit. We then would be locked in this predestination. That is what you unwittingly claim. It is all wrong.

With open theism it makes sense that Adam falls, eliminate Adam, and make Steve because there is nothing beyond Adam. It only makes sense if God knows there is going to be a Peter, Patrick, Bling, etc....

Let Adam suffer eternal punishment or have millions(billions) suffer punishment. Why? Because He foresaw your existence, personally, and loves you before you were born. By taking away their suffering(killing Adam), your chance is eliminated.

It makes since even beyond Adam. I keep stressing Adam because you claim he was designed to sin... or you dont... or you kinda do... I don't know anymore.

But after Adam, all flesh who understand sin will fall to it if given long enough to fall. That is not to say how they will fall and how often. How does that differ from saying we were created to sin?

Because when we understand sin, that sin tempts us until we fall. Not by design nor intention of God, but rather because sin perverted the perfect creation. Sin is the perfect way to separate us all from God, and God never wanted that. The world you see now is nothing but a perversion of what was originally desired.

Rob, If you want to see my scriptural proof from much of the above, read what I presented to Bling

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=954866&postcount=531

 

[RobE]

I have received so many mixed messages from you on this.
I am confused as to why you disagree with everything said here. I know the Bible says all have sinned, but it also said all went to John to be baptized. Anytime we use a word like "all" or "everyone" there is an exception. Everyone didn't get Baptized by John... it's just an expression that a lot of people did.

A Mercedes is designed to be driven. It doesn't mean it will be driven.

The Tree, Serpent, Law, and Man all in one place.......

They do not need the Cross to say because they do not need to be justified for sins they didn't commit. They do need God's love, they do need his blessings, but they don't need forgiveness.

Read the scripture. None are worthy. All deserve death.

The Tree, Serpent, Law, and Man all in one place.......

God is Love. Thus he does what is loving. It is not loving to force people to not sin by holding the very fibers of the universe over their heads. How is that true freewill?
People resist God and his blessings through sin and evil. The flood cleansed the world of evil, and that is why it was necessary. After the flood God introduced the law gradually and over time. He started with the death penalty and added to it through time. Men were now much less evil. So now God attempts to bring Christ into the world through the nation of Israel. Again and again they sin and reject God to the point that his being king over them was not fruitful. Time passes accordingly.

Finally, God goes on with the plan for Christ as recorded in history in hopes that Israel was ready. They were not. Now we live in the grace era.

Do you see how the Open View must make God temporal and more manlike(Zeus-like)? God keeps trying in Open Theism which is my greatest objection to it!

The Tree, Serpent, Law, and Man all in one place.......

God's plans will come to pass in the end. There will be a kingdom, there will be a new heaven and earth. But in the mean time, because of sin and resistance of God, God waits until he knows all have decided(that is my belief).

Which is why I asked you about killing Adam. Don't you see? If God didn't know who 'all' was then how could He wait for them to decide?

The Tree, Serpent, Law, and Man all in one place.......

Jesus didn't see myself on the cross and know my name as he hung there. But his death was for me, and all in general (for a significant lack of a better way of saying it).
If my sins didn't exist on the cross with Jesus neither did I. If I did exist, so did my sins.

This is where the calvinistic view finds its way into your beliefs. If Jesus bore my sins on the cross as in my literal sins, that means I am by fate going to commit them and by fate going to be saved. All by his design too.

Yet your will remains free. Just because God sees the outcome does not take away your choice. St. Augustine said that if you want to be in the elect, then act like the elect; and become the elect. Do you see this? Arminianism. God knows the outcome, but your choice remains free.

After all if he saw me when he created Adam, he saw the sins I would commit. We then would be locked in this predestination. That is what you unwittingly claim. It is all wrong.

The Tree, Serpent, Law, and Man all in one place.......

If He hadn't foreseen you and wanted you, He would have started over with Adam, Noah, Abraham...... Why didn't God just take Abraham to Himself like Enoch was taken? Because God wanted you and you didn't exist yet.

And yet if He hadn't created Adam you wouldn't be here. If He'd killed Adam you wouldn't be here. And if Adam hadn't eaten from the tree you wouldn't be who you are. If God hadn't placed....

The Tree, Serpent, Law, and Man all in one place....... you couldn't learn to Love Him. You couldn't become one with Christ. You. His Love. Jesus the Christ. The Vine and the Branches.

Friends,
Rob

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Rob,

I know the biggest reason people reject the O.V. is because they think it humanizes God.

I will say more about this later. But for now I must talk about you.

I find it very hard to know what to say about anything because you seem to keep changing your views.

Examples (emphasis added):

You on Arminianism

RobE #583:St. Augustine said that if you want to be in the elect, then act like the elect; and become the elect. Do you see this? Arminianism. God knows the outcome, but your choice remains free.

RobE #444: I said Bob was an Arminian, but he definitely isn't. Neither am I. Sorry. I think I'll switch to: I agree with the 'Traditional View' from here on.


You on Man's design

RobE #583:A Mercedes is designed to be driven. It doesn't mean it will be driven.

RobE #504:If Jesus designed us to fall then Jesus paid the price for that fall----in full.

RobE #581:No. I say that God designed men to choose and they would inevitably choose wrong.

RobE #493:He designed All to get on the boats[i.e. be saved] and gave them ALL sufficient ability to make the correct decision.

RobE #502:God did design us to fall: GEN 3:16[really meant GEN 3:22 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."]

RobE #577:God is realistic. He knew that if a man, that could sin(free will), was created then that man's fall was inevitable. So knowing the future, God arranged the fall where the least amount of damage would occur; AND, made a way so that every evil which came out of the fall would be taken and paid for by Himself(Jesus). Does this sound like a loving God to you?

RobE #570:Lee[i.e. God] knows his son[i.e. creation] is going to fall so stands ready to catch him. Lee could have removed his sons legs or held him down, but realized that if he did that, then his son wouldn't learn to walk. To make it as safe for the boy as possible Lee has made an environment where, when the boy falls, he won't get killed. Is Lee evil for doing this?

RobE #535: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.

RobE #493:If God made a design where all were saved/perfect would a free choice be available or coerced. The choice is what tests us and makes us what He desires. Any creation that He made; would have similar outcomes with His current goal. Adam had to sin. Lucifer fulfilled His role in the design.

RobE #493:How many Judases would God allow in order to get one Patrick?


You on Foreknowledge VS Predestination

RobE #493:I hold that God knows 100% of the future events by His ability; whether that ability is His because of: calculated knowledge about current events, or by power to cause them, or by some supernatural ability which is unknown to us

RobE #340:I didn't say a God who does not know the future is responsible for all evil only that he ignores evil around him. It's no truer than open viewers saying the Calvinist God authors sin, right? Both are sins as you well know. To participate or ignore wrong makes you culpable.

RobE #485:They[i.e. OV'ers] can't seem to differentiate between simply 'seeing the future' and 'creating evils in the future'. It's true without Him there would be NO future(because He is the creator), but it doesn't make Him the author of evils that men do.

RobE #472:I agree it is inescapable, but culpability comes with intent.

RobE #431:Foresight = You see the future from where things stand right now. Foreordination = You see and order how everything will be in the future.

RobE #340:As I pointed out before, I'm not a Calvinist---and never have been.


Questions
Rob, how many stories do you have? Are we allowed to sin(so that we need Christ) or designed to (so we need Christ)?

Are you Armenian again??? I thought you rejected that before... And before that you embraced it. Back to the old ways or not?

Did Adam have to sin or did he choose to sin?

Did God simply foresee the sin and allow it or did he foresee it and design it?

Is designing man to sin not intent to get man to sin?

Is intent not the key to being culpable?

Every answer I give to you seems to result in a change of story. And It has been going on for a loooooong time.

There is only two things you are sticking with: Foreknowledge is not Foreordination and God has foreknowledge.

And in one post you say he designed man to fall. Another you say intent makes him guilty. Then another you say it was allowed to fall.

Pick one please. Pick the best one that helps your arguments for a SV existence.

I would like to answer more from your last post, but I can't go on until we settle all this. Your answers are not in harmony, and not well thought out at that.


Rejecting the O.V.

I understand that taking away the idea that God has foreknowledge is taking away a cool ability. Now God can't see the future and neither can we.

That's the thinking of the S.V.

We must remember that Jesus became human. And we must note that he is still human. We will have a body like Christ's, that is scripture. That means Christ is still human.

We can pretend that God can do anything and see anything, but we do not have a pretend God. He is real. If the O.V. reveals truths about him, it should be nothing for us to give up our pretend beliefs about him, no matter how "human" that makes him look.

God's future knowledge is very advanced above our own. It is not comparable to human knowledge in any aspect. The O.V. Does not say God has no future knowledge, it simply says God does not have 100% complete knowledge.

Even if we do say God does not have foreknowledge this in no way equates his ability to see the future to a mans. God is far greater than Man and knows infinitely more than the collective brainpower of all man, past future and present.

Because of the Above, no S.V. believer should be afraid that O.V. Humanizes God.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling the comment above tells me you are not reading my posts well. It looks like you are skimming them over.

Patman, I have been addressing virtually everyone of your comments, after reading each over several times. I do very much appreciate what you have written, I have learned some things from you and have learned a lot by having to try and explain to you and shear with you my understanding. It has become some what frustrating for both of us and this is a very busy time of year. I am not discouraged yet, because I feel we are both searching for the truth. I should not have said, “no command to fellowship Him” there are many NT commands, I was thinking of the O.T. just talking about the fellowship meal, but you can make a very strong point that God commands Fellowship in the OT and NT. I do not know what I was thinking and sometimes my poor writing /spelling skills get in my way.

Originally Posted by Patman
Please read this again:
"I have said that the fellowship God wants requires love, you seem to say love is the only thing he wants and fellowship is not required. I hope you reconsider that. Having fellowship and love with God is greater than just having love."

I have tried to show fellowship alone does not work. While Godly love for God like David had right after being presented with his sin and seeking God’s forgiveness prior to David having returned to fellowship with God is what God was wanting from David. Yes, David also wanted to be fellowshipping with God, but loving God came first. Also, Jesus was fellowshipping with Peter after He had rose from the grave, while fellowshipping He asked Peter for “Love” three times. It appears to me Jesus was asking for more then just Peter’s fellowship.

Originally Posted by Patman
"I have said that God wants fellowship that requires love. You see to say love is the only thing God wants, and fellowship is not required. Please reconsider! Fellowship and love with God is better than love only."

I do not feel anyone would go very long without God fellowshipping them if they truly loved Him. Fellowship and Loving God are better then fellowshipping with God only.

Originally Posted by Patman
Just what do you think walking with God is, Bling?

Fellowshipping with God.

Originally Posted by Patman
God desires a lot from us. It isn't only love! By the above, if you are in fellowship with God, you are loving him too!! If you are in fellowship with God, you are loving others!!! Why? because you are fulfilling the two greatest commands by not sinning.

1. I do not think Adam and Eve were Godly loving God and yet they were in fellowship with God.
2. I do not think Adam loved Eve, as a result of Adam’s fellowship with God, but could have if Adam had really loved God, but I guess we can say Adam did not have a Godly type love for Eve just a strong spousal type love, so I just disproved my point. Adam could have used the Godly type love for Eve to help Her after sinning instead of just wanting to join her and be with her, in sin.
3. You are not “fulfilling the two greatest commands by not sinning.” Adam and Eve did not fulfill the two greatest commands by not sinning, if they had developed Godly type love they could have then been able to fulfill the two greatest commands. Remember “if you love me, you will obey me” it does not say, “if you obey me you will love me”!!!! For a while Adam and Eve were obeying God and not Godly type loving God, but could not sustain that relationship.
4. All the things God is asking us to do as Christians comes after we love Him, which with the Spirit’s help is really made possible and rewarding.

Originally Posted by Patman
Fellowship with God was all but lost in the Garden because of sin. Had there been no sin, all men would fellowship with God.

You are missing the point, Adam and Eve had fellowship with God and they then went ahead anyway and sinned. If they had developed a Godly type love for God they would not have sinned with that love intake.
“All men would fellowship with God.” But would they have developed Godly type love for God? Adam and Eve did not.

Originally Posted by Patman
Obviously Adam and Eve blew it. But according to you they didn't start to love God till they sinned. That simply goes against all the teaching of the bible, Bling.

Not at all!!! “Those that are forgiven of much love much.” “No great love…”, the only way to see, feel and experience the “greatest love” is by Christ dieing for our sins. A sinful world produces/ results in needy people, so we can serve others out of Godly love like God serves us. We can be dependent on God’s mercy for our eternal close relationship with God and not on our personal ability to keep from sinning. We will have limited personal results with resources out side the Garden that will enable us to have something to personally sacrifice. All our examples of mere humans being successful in this world are of sinners. All the teachings of the Bible are addressing sinners or at least those that will sin.

Patman think about this. You are or could be a very Christ like person (Strong Christian) if you had lots of money, you could spend all your time fellowshipping your kids, they would be fellowshipping you and Christ through you. Now you do not want your children to sin (we all don’t want our children to sin), so do we take them to a beautiful inland, teach them perfectly, set up a life time trust, give them all they want, keep all evil away, etc. It sounds good, but will they develop a sacrificial, selfless, committed, thought out love for God and will they keep from sinning. All the Bible examples of humans (that were not also God) sinned so what examples can you give them? (This is just one problem)
Really, what you would and do want in your children is for them to develop a strong Godly type love for God, grow into that and grow with that. With you (as the physical representative of Christ) they are in fellowship with Christ. The bottom line is they must grow, make choices, and with growth and making choices is making mistakes (sin). If they are not making mistakes on their own, they are not developing and you (with Christ living in you) want them to work through their mistakes and come out on the other side stronger. Again, you do not want your children to sin, but that is not possible, practical, or for that matter the main objective. You do want them to except Christ as there savior (because of their sin) and take that Godly love (expressed with Christ going to the cross) and grow in their love for God (you would also like them to continue in fellowship with you (Christ) which they will).

Originally Posted by Patman
You gotta do bad to love. That's simply wrong.

You will be bad and then you can receive forgiveness and then you can love much because you have been forgiven much. We are repeatedly told we will sin and all have sinned. It is not God’s fault or Adam’s fault, it is our fault, but good can come from it.
You say, “God did not know Adam and Eve would sin”, yet would you say, if Adam and Eve do sin then God would know from then on for certain that each and ever mature adult descendent of Adam and Eve would sin? If the option to “not sin” is removed who removed it? Why can we not blame the remover of the option?
You have said if Adam and Eve had gone on not sinning the knowledge of good and evil would eventually be given to them, but is not the knowledge of good and evil what causes all adult humans everywhere to sin? We can easily realize all will sin, so why would God not also realize this? Eventually over time Adam and Eve would have full knowledge of good and evil, so they will sin?

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling over and over again in your last post I see so many ways you misread me. I am going right over your head. Maybe you don't take in each word or read it completely. I don't know.

I have addressed specifically almost every statement you have made.

Originally Posted by Patman
You must have not read my other posts neither. I did answer the very questions you accuse me of ignoring. I think you just skimmed over them and totally missed it. Or maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you forgot my answers. But I don't think you forgot. I think you never knew.


I am not the best at reading and grammar. But when, I want to read something and understand it, I do a pretty good job. Sometimes it takes re-reading a sentence, and looking up words. Sometimes you gotta read it out loud. And when I write I have a spell checker running to catch my misspelt words. I proofread my writings.

It is important that I understand you, and you understand me. I almost always proofread what I send to you so I get the feeling that what I send to you is understandable.

I wish you did that. Read this sentence in your last post and tell me if it makes any sense to you:

"I have generated a dozen postings some with no response to by you that explains why sin is necessary to develop Godly type love for God in the Garden."

"to by you that"??

I struggle to read you sometimes. Sometimes I have to re-read you a few times to get exactly what you are saying.


Using less words does wonders: "I have posted a dozen posts that you did not respond to about the necessity of sin to develop Godly type love in the Garden."

You did a great job dissevering what I was saying. I did a very poor job writing that sentence. I could blame the season, lots to do, frustration, many interruptions with long posts and trying to keep up with the other posts. I also have dyslexia, but did manage to get two masters degrees.

I ask from now on you proofread your writings to me and fully read mine to you.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...2&postcount=476
Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

Bling, your views are based in scripture, but not to the means you take them. You are building your own rooms in the house that are not a part of Gods plan, you do so thinking you are right because you got the idea from God's plans, but they are still your own.

You should know that doing evil that good may come of it is still doing evil. And you should know that God shuns sin, and does not plan sin. He cannot tempt. He cannot create sin. He cannot make us to be sinners. He cannot look ahead knowing what we will do and create that anyway.

Alarms should be going off in your heart when you think that God would create us knowing we would sin. They should sound above the roaring of the sun's fires that God would have anything to do with sin and planning it into our discovery of love.

I beg you to reconsider that my ideas are not problematic because you cannot account for the solutions. And I beg you to reconsider if your ideas are as I said above.

Patman my response to post 467 was 482 which was not addressed directly.
Paragraph one is strictly your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.
Paragraph two is fine I am in agreement up to the last sentence, which is what we are discussing most of the time here.
Paragraph three is again your opinion, and the topic of our discussion.
Paragraph four is a plea, which is fine. What I am pointing out from scripture is, “God can not make an earthly human, which can develop Godly type love for Him that will not also sin at some time.” That is not God’s fault, it is each human’s fault (it is sad, but that is the way we are). We are selfish by nature which is great for a baby’s survival and to realize unselfishness, but it must be over come in ourselves.

My very lengthy post 482 was in response to post 467 and was not addressed directly by you and we have moved on.






My lengthy post 517 addresses most of this, but I will go through it again.
From your post 509:

Originally Posted by patman
Rightly judge what is good, and what is evil. Stop your deceitful thoughts that tell you that God would cause evil. Your arguments that sin is needed for Agape love puts shame on God, and his love for us!

No. Today parents allow their children to make mistakes (that will not cause them long term harm), so they will develop maturity. A parent that did everything possible to keep their children from making any mistake would be/ should be put in jail. A good parent would keep extending the difficulty of the opportunities to maximize the growth of their children, but that will also result in the children failing and realize where they need help and growth. In the same way God allows us to sin, so we can grow in our love for Him.

Originally Posted by Patman
You place the full responsibility of our current state on God, who looked at this, and created it anyway. You say "God couldn't resist creating us even knowing the sinners and sins that would come about with 100% certainty." And worst, you say "It was for the best." And even worst, you say "he even arranged it to happen."

Will, go back to my parent scenario. Parents do arrange opportunities for their children to grow and know they will make mistakes.

Originally Posted by Patman
According to you, the first round, God couldn't bestow Agape love on his creation without sin. So he gave us sin that we might understand it. Now this second time, sin will not be required because we will magically be able to agape love without sin. God will do the second time(the recreation of heaven and earth) what he "forgot" to do the first time(allow us to understand and exercise agape love without need for sin)? God will do what he "gracefully didn't" do the first time?

I am not a premillenniumest, so the only other place we will be is Heaven, where we already have developed Godly love and are complete different beings.

Originally Posted by Patman
What is your answer bling? Why didn't God just give us understanding of love that he wanted us to have when it was always possible for him to do it? Why didn't God allow us to grasp it without sin the first time? And why make it a two round creation, one that sin rips apart, and one that sin has no part of, and love be possible for both, only one requires sin and the other doesn't?

We can not have a decision type love of our own decision, if the love is God’s decision love given to us (it is not our love it would be His love). It is much more then a simple definition of love, because it requires our decision on our part.

Originally Posted by Patman
Why not just do the right thing the first time and not require sin for the understanding of love? He can do it, he has the power. Why cause this suffering for loves sake by sin, when it isn't even necessary? How can you say God does that?
Because you believe that God would do evil that good may come of it.

No. God does not do evil. God allows evil to go on and happen just look at the cross. We can just look and see what happened and with what results. Now, all of the results were not all that God desired, but that was not God’s fault. The opportunity is there for humans to do well. I think God did/ does the best He can/ could each time every time.

Originally Posted by Patman
To you, God wasn't strong enough to stop himself from creating a world like this. With his future knowledge, he looked ahead and was content with the world. And he saw 9/11, the holocaust, the death marches, the disease and hunger, pain and hurt and saw an small spark in it all and you must believe that HE said, "I will create earth, and it will indeed be wicked, as I am the LORD, it will be wicked. Yet for this one small spark I will do it, for I cannot stop myself.

God is not wicked! God allowed the best situation for humans to develop Godly love for Him.

Originally Posted by Patman
"I know I hate evil, and I know billions and billions of my children will suffer because I created them. Indeed, as Jesus will one day say, it would be better that they had never been born once they see the hell I will send them too.

"I know I will regret creating man on the earth, and will be grieved in my heart that I created him.

"However, I will create it knowing it will all fall apart, then I will step in in a mighty way and do what I should have done the first time. Create something that will be perfect forever. But the first time I do it, I will cause it to fall apart with sin. Then the second time, only a few will enjoy the love, the small spark that I foresaw. And those who fall will have fallen because of the sin I arranged him to commit."

Again the next place is heaven. God arranged the world to be a place were Humans could develop Godly love for Him, unfortunately to have real alternatives to loving (for choices) there will be ways to sin and since there are ways to sin, forgiveness that can only happen after sinning and time to sin humans will chose at some point in their maturity to sin. This is the best situation for all humans to develop love on earth.

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling, that is evil. Reject that thinking!! Instead, say "God created us as a universe full of light, for he made it all perfect; even Satan was perfect at creation! But it had freewill, a choice to love or to hate, and the future wasn't foreseeable, so God didn't know all that darkness would happen. He expected nothing but good, but instead got evil. And the light fell into darkness from it's own freewill, for God caused nothing to happen that is sinful. But all will be well again one day, when God separates the darkness from the light, and the light will shine forever apart from the darkness. Then, when God recreates what we messed up, the light will be together, and all will be right."

God has always and will always do the best He can do. The problem even today is not sin, but humans need to turn from sinning to excepting God’s love and loving Him. Even after they do that they will sin most likely, but if they do sin they can be washed clean, the sins are both forgiven and forgotten and those Humans can stand before God sinless.

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling, Even Jesus recognizes some are better off not being born! Do you challenge him?

Mark 14:21
"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Jesus said it this kind of thing on other occasions too. He knows that It would be better if sinners had never been born, for the hell they know is real.

We have all sinned, people that die without being forgiven of their sins would be better off not being born and that is what I think Jesus is trying to communicate here.

Originally Posted by Patman
Don't miss the point, bling. God created good, and expected good. Instead he got bitterness, and the bitterness was unexpected and undesired. Don't say that the bitterness God got was really sweetness. Don't be like those silly children I told Rob about!

Evil is not good. God can take the most evil person in the world and make them good, if they will allow Him to. God creates the way and the opportunity for Humans to become good, wonderful, and great. Bitter can become sweet, again.

Originally Posted by Patman
Isaiah 5
1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?

God's expectations are real. If he thinks something will happen, he really thinks something will happen. This message is to Israel, it is about how God planted them, how he expected them to be good, but were evil instead. But it is also about the world. God planted the world. He expected it to bring forth Good grapes. But instead, look at all the wickedness.

This is a very poetic passage and I allow a lot of latitude to the poet. We would have to review a lot of poems to see how God presents His message in poetry. For now, I have read this and others and from my understanding of poetic passages God could and has expressed Himself this way without developing a prove text for not understanding what would happen. We can really discuss this latter if you want.

Your post 428 respond to by me in post 434:
Originally Posted by patman

Man's Purpose - To have fellowship with God. To be the image and likeness of God. To be as a "god" to the animals and the earth by having authority over them. To populate the earth.

1 Corinthians 1:9
God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

Genesis 1
"26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I do not think our likeness to God has anything to do with our “To be as a "god" to the animals and the earth”, our likeness has to do with our ability to develop Godly type love, make decisions. The dominion over the earth is part of God showing His love to us.

Originally Posted by Patman
Fellowship with the son does not require the cross for those who do not know sin. The healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick, so those without sin do not need the cross, but those who do sin. Had Adam not sinned, he would have no need for the cross to have fellowship for Jesus.

I believe today children of Christ like (Spirit indwelling) parents are in fellowship with Christ before they understand the cross. In spite of this fellowship these children as they grow older (like Adam and Eve) will sin. Yes, if Adam had not sinned he would have been in fellowship with Christ, but as you say, as time went on Adam and Eve would have been given the knowledge of good and evil and we know (and I am sure God would know) every mature adult with the knowledge of good and evil will sin.

Originally Posted by Patman
Remember that fellowship with God requires love and obedience. And love and obedience means having fellowship with him. You said that yourself.

Yes!!! Any and all obedience to the commands including fellowship requires Godly type love.

Originally Posted by Patman
And I do just that. You sum it up in in Love, which can be incomplete with out saying "Oh yeah, love means hanging out with someone." But I say a loving relationship, or fellowship, with God should be our objective.

I never said love means, “hanging out with someone”.
Adam and Eve had fellowship with God and it was not enough to keep them from sinning.
“fellowship, with God should be our objective.” The Bible clearly states, “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.” I have asked you before, “Where does the scripture say we are to be giving our all to doing anything else?”
Being asked to do something and being asked to give your all to doing something does not sound like the same degree of emphasis.

Originally Posted by Patman

You put too much on Agape love. It is one of the many loves God wants for us to have with him and with each other. It is a wonderful love, it is called "godly love" but it isn't the only love there is that God wants to share with us. Agape love requires no former relationship and requires no post relationship to give or receive.

I am defining, Agape love for God as loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy, not: a friendship type love, not child to parent type love, and not even a spousal type love (without the sex). We are not told to give our all in the other types of love.

Originally Posted by Patman
God desires a love from us that does require a fellowship. God has different relationships with us all, some bigger than others, some smaller. He wants that fellowship because it comes with many types of love.

“many types of love”, I only see Godly type love between man and God being described. Jesus was asking for Godly type love from Peter, not just a simple type love.

Originally Posted by Patman
Like I said before, walking with God is more than loving him. It is being with him. God created us to do a lot of things, but the most satisfying of them all is fellowship with love in him and with him.

I am not saying, God does not want to fellowship with us and a lot of other stuff, but Godly type love for God is our motivation for everything good we should be doing including fellowshipping God and fellowshipping other Christians.

This has taken a lot of time and I have been real busy after getting back to work.

 

[RobE]

Examples (emphasis added):

You on Arminianism

RobE #583:St. Augustine said that if you want to be in the elect, then act like the elect; and become the elect. Do you see this? Arminianism. God knows the outcome, but your choice remains free.

This is what I believe. Arminianism is the tag given it by many. I read your link to the definition of Arminianism and it said much more than this. So I agreed that given that definition I'm not Arminian. However given the above definition by St. Augustine, I am.

RobE #444: I said Bob was an Arminian, but he definitely isn't. Neither am I. Sorry. I think I'll switch to: I agree with the 'Traditional View' from here on.

St. Augustine was alive before Arminus and considered himself a universal Christian.
_____________________________________________________________

You on Man's design

RobE #583:A Mercedes is designed to be driven. It doesn't mean it will be driven.

RobE #504:If Jesus designed us to fall then Jesus paid the price for that fall----in full.

RobE #581:No. I say that God designed men to choose and they would inevitably choose wrong.

RobE #493:He designed All to get on the boats[i.e. be saved] and gave them ALL sufficient ability to make the correct decision.

RobE #502:God did design us to fall: GEN 3:16[really meant GEN 3:22 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."]

RobE #577:God is realistic. He knew that if a man, that could sin(free will), was created then that man's fall was inevitable. So knowing the future, God arranged the fall where the least amount of damage would occur; AND, made a way so that every evil which came out of the fall would be taken and paid for by Himself(Jesus). Does this sound like a loving God to you?

RobE #570:Lee[i.e. God] knows his son[i.e. creation] is going to fall so stands ready to catch him. Lee could have removed his sons legs or held him down, but realized that if he did that, then his son wouldn't learn to walk. To make it as safe for the boy as possible Lee has made an environment where, when the boy falls, he won't get killed. Is Lee evil for doing this?

RobE #535: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.

RobE #493:If God made a design where all were saved/perfect would a free choice be available or coerced. The choice is what tests us and makes us what He desires. Any creation that He made; would have similar outcomes with His current goal. Adam had to sin. Lucifer fulfilled His role in the design.

RobE #493:How many Judases would God allow in order to get one Patrick?

All the Above statement compliment each other. They don't say different things, just the same thing over and over again.
________________________________________________________

You on Foreknowledge VS Predestination

RobE #493:I hold that God knows 100% of the future events by His ability; whether that ability is His because of: calculated knowledge about current events, or by power to cause them, or by some supernatural ability which is unknown to us

RobE #340:I didn't say a God who does not know the future is responsible for all evil only that he ignores evil around him. It's no truer than open viewers saying the Calvinist God authors sin, right? Both are sins as you well know. To participate or ignore wrong makes you culpable.

To clarify this. I was just trying to get you to understand that the reason God would go on with His plan after foreseeing some of the devastation that would occur; was exactly the same reason He allows that devastation to occur if foresight was untrue. I don't believe He's culpable either way as the O.V. does.​

RobE #485:They[i.e. OV'ers] can't seem to differentiate between simply 'seeing the future' and 'creating evils in the future'. It's true without Him there would be NO future(because He is the creator), but it doesn't make Him the author of evils that men do.

RobE #472:I agree it is inescapable, but culpability comes with intent.

RobE #431:Foresight = You see the future from where things stand right now. Foreordination = You see and order how everything will be in the future.

RobE #340:As I pointed out before, I'm not a Calvinist---and never have been.

Again, all these statement compliment each other unless your reading something into it I can't understand.
__________________________________________________________________


Questions
Rob, how many stories do you have? Are we allowed to sin(so that we need Christ) or designed to (so we need Christ)?

Answer: We are designed with free will which inevitably leads us to sin---so we need Christ.

Are you Armenian again??? I thought you rejected that before... And before that you embraced it. Back to the old ways or not?

Answer: It depends on which definition you wish to use. I prefer to continue saying 'Traditional Christianity'. If you prefer Arminianism, so be it.

Did Adam have to sin or did he choose to sin?

Answer: Adam chose to sin just as God foresaw Adam choosing.

Did God simply foresee the sin and allow it or did he foresee it and design it?

Answer: God made the Law, Tree, Man, Serpent, and Lucifer; put them together, and foresaw what would happen. By choosing the scenario, you might say He designed it to happen the way it did; but in no way did He force Adam to sin. That was Adam's choice alone. The scenario is just suspicious, wouldn't you agree? God wasn't surprised if that's what you mean.

Is designing man to sin not intent to get man to sin?

Answer: NO! Designing man to Love or sin and hoping for love is not intent to get man to sin. The reason God made us you'll have to get from Him, later. I can't answer how or why He originated the idea. I do know the only way to live forever is by being part of Jesus Christ. Things of the flesh will pass away; while things of the Spirit will continue for an eternity.

Is intent not the key to being culpable?

Answer: It is. God's intent was to create beings like himself, with the knowledge of good and evil. The problem is that knowledge is a two edged sword. Those inexperienced with it are going to hurt themselves(or Him in the case of Jesus). His intent was simply to make beings like Himself(in His image). The reason for this is ????

Every answer I give to you seems to result in a change of story. And It has been going on for a loooooong time.

Answer: I hope this clears it up!

There is only two things you are sticking with: Foreknowledge is not Foreordination and God has foreknowledge.

And in one post you say he designed man to fall. Another you say intent makes him guilty. Then another you say it was allowed to fall.

Answer: I'll pick God allowed man to fall after placing Him in a position where He would fall. In other words, by making man in His own image----man would fall and need Jesus Christ.
_______________________________________________________________________

I would like to answer more from your last post, but I can't go on until we settle all this. Your answers are not in harmony, and not well thought out at that.

Answer: Really. I've been studying the Bible for twenty years. I have a degree on the 'Life of Christ'. I've been a member of the 'Lambs of Christ'. I've been imprisoned for years trying to protect the innocent and during that time I had nothing to do but study the Bible. Not to boast or think highly of myself, but why don't you give me some benefit of the doubt. I've been far too complacent in recent years, but there's a change in the wind. God help us.
__________________________________________________________________

Rejecting the O.V.

I understand that taking away the idea that God has foreknowledge is taking away a cool ability. Now God can't see the future and neither can we.

That's the thinking of the S.V.

We must remember that Jesus became human. And we must note that he is still human. We will have a body like Christ's, that is scripture. That means Christ is still human.

We can pretend that God can do anything and see anything, but we do not have a pretend God. He is real. If the O.V. reveals truths about him, it should be nothing for us to give up our pretend beliefs about him, no matter how "human" that makes him look.

God's future knowledge is very advanced above our own. It is not comparable to human knowledge in any aspect. The O.V. Does not say God has no future knowledge, it simply says God does not have 100% complete knowledge.



Because of the Above, no S.V. believer should be afraid that O.V. Humanizes God.
____________________________________________________________________

Even if we do say God does not have foreknowledge this in no way equates his ability to see the future to a mans. God is far greater than Man and knows infinitely more than the collective brainpower of all man, past future and present.

Then why in the world would you even think for an instant that God can't figure out what you're going to do? And why in the world do you think you know all of God's capabilities? The Bible is specific.

Forever,

Rob

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Rob, you said "All the Above statement compliment each other. They don't say different things, just the same thing over and over again." for a bigger part of the contradictions I posted.

That's not really a complete answer tho, because I knew you'd say that, and yet the question still is there.

Most of those say God designed man to sin. Or that he arranged it. All except for the very last one, that says he allowed it.

And you don't take them back apparently. So you still hold to them. I guess you thought that things were clear, but instead you just add to the confusion with:

And in one post you say he designed man to fall. Another you say intent makes him guilty. Then another you say it was allowed to fall.

Answer: I'll pick God allowed man to fall after placing Him in a position where He would fall. In other words, by making man in His own image----man would fall and need Jesus Christ.

So about ten quotes saying he designed Adam to sin (and no rejection back of any of those AND the new saying that they compliment your over all idea.

Now we have not 1, but 2 quotes saying he allowed it. And you admitted before designed and allowed are not the same thing...

I would like to just take that last answer as your final answer. But you aren't shedding your old answers yet. And in the same confirmation of past statements you add another "We are designed with free will!" So we are not only still affirming old contradictions we are adding on to them, and thus moving backwards.

You'll have to explain how it is possible!

BUT you'll probably say you already explained it. In times past when you take a stab at it, you always leave out that Foreknowledge and Creator go together with your assessment of God.

You say foreknowledge and foreordination are different, but this isn't true if you are also the creator.

Is designing man to sin not intent to get man to sin?

Answer: NO! Designing man to Love or sin and hoping for love is not intent to get man to sin. The reason God made us you'll have to get from Him, later. I can't answer how or why He originated the idea. I do know the only way to live forever is by being part of Jesus Christ. Things of the flesh will pass away; while things of the Spirit will continue for an eternity.

I know that you are adamant about the whole foreordination != (doesn't equal) foreknowledge. that's how you tell yourself the above makes sense. Be that the case you have to purposefully forget that God is also the creator when you make that logical conclusion!

If a creator has foreknowledge and makes something he knows exactly how it will turn out. Given any attribute to the creation he knows the future outcomes of those attributes. Everything that happens as a result of that chain of events set by the creator with foreknowledge are set.

Sure, he is powerful, he can change them, but he foresaw the changes! He can't hide anything from himself. So even those changes are a part of the plan! It is all one big book really. We are just the puppets acting it out in real time.

Nothing can have freewill by default with a creator with foreknowledge, because his creation automatically becomes foreordained with the appearance of freewill.

So I need two things from you. I need you to use design and allowed in the same sentence to explain yourself, or I need you to shed one. I also need a rebut to the above logic.

If we you can bring this together we can move forward, but for now... you are still saying different things.

As to your question about my rejecting your assertion that God knew Adam would sin, I have answered that before. God had no absolute knowledge of that future event until it happened, his future knowledge is still better than a mans, however. That's the real point, he is still way better than man, even without 100% future knowledge.

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Bling, thank you for the well written post.

This one was so much better, I feel I understand you and appreciate the effort.

I wanted to start out with another "Thank you" for re-reanswering the previous post. I know you already did before, but this time your answers were very clear. You said a lot and dabbled in a lot of other subject matter that I will let alone for this thread, as they are simply way off topic.

Bling, I think that having an ongoing fellowship automatically means you love the person you fellowship with.

Your argument for Adam and Eve's fellowship not being enough is good. Adam and Eve clearly didn't love God or they wouldn't have sinned. That means when they cut off the fellowship, they cut off the love.

Fellowship and love go hand and hand. Where there is no love, there is no fellowship. Where there is Fellowship there is love. The thing about love is that it doesn't require fellowship in all it's parts. Some aspects of love do require fellowship. Others don't. By requiring fellowship, you are requiring many aspects of love.

Adam and Eve didn't love God once they ended their fellowship with him. Up until them, I am sure they loved God in many areas. It was their decision to stop loving God that ended the fellowship. And that decision was considered sin.


That's what I think. You can disagree if you like, I know we won't agree on everything, but I think it should be said we agree with this. Correct me if I am wrong:

God want's a love from us that includes fellowship. God want's a fellowship form us that includes love.


Bling, I don't know if you are keeping up with my other conversations on here, me and Rob are talking about something that I think is important to this conversation.

You claim that our objective of love means we need sin. We need sin because it shows us we are forgiven. You go on to say our being shown what love is goes along with our growing process. I.E. We learn from our experiences when we are free to choose.

I agree with everything except the needing sin part. I say we do not need sin to understand and to grow and to learn and to be free. We simply need the freedom to sin, not sin itself.

That said, you believe we need sin for our objective. That must mean God created us such that we would find sin so we could fulfill that objective, is this what you think?

If no, please explain how God intended for us to meet our objective if he wasn't going to see to it that it happen?

 

[RobE]

I would like to just take that last answer as your final answer. But you aren't shedding your old answers yet. And in the same confirmation of past statements you add another "We are designed with free will!" So we are not only still affirming old contradictions we are adding on to them, and thus moving backwards.

You'll have to explain how it is possible!

It's possible because foreknowledge doesn't equal foreordination! You can't get your brain around this.

BUT you'll probably say you already explained it. In times past when you take a stab at it, you always leave out that Foreknowledge and Creator go together with your assessment of God.

You say foreknowledge and foreordination are different, but this isn't true if you are also the creator.

I know that you are adamant about the whole foreordination != (doesn't equal) foreknowledge. that's how you tell yourself the above makes sense. Be that the case you have to purposefully forget that God is also the creator when you make that logical conclusion!

If a creator has foreknowledge and makes something he knows exactly how it will turn out. Given any attribute to the creation he knows the future outcomes of those attributes. Everything that happens as a result of that chain of events set by the creator with foreknowledge are set.

Sure, he is powerful, he can change them, but he foresaw the changes! He can't hide anything from himself. So even those changes are a part of the plan! It is all one big book really. We are just the puppets acting it out in real time.

This is where you lose it. He can't foresee changes that aren't made yet. He's the only one who can change the future. Now do you understand?

So I need two things from you. I need you to use design and allowed in the same sentence to explain yourself, or I need you to shed one. I also need a rebut to the above logic.

God designed man with freewill and allowed man to use it however man wanted to use it.

As to your question about my rejecting your assertion that God knew Adam would sin, I have answered that before. God had no absolute knowledge of that future event until it happened, his future knowledge is still better than a mans, however. That's the real point, he is still way better than man, even without 100% future knowledge.

Agreed. God foresaw what would happen, but until that time, it didn't happen. God could change the outcome up to that point. God knew, given the circumstances, that Adam would eventually sin. I know you don't want to accept it, but you believe it just as I do. Living the 'what if' fantasy of a Utopia doesn't answer how flesh becomes spirit. Jesus Christ does.

Friends,
Rob

 

[patman]

Rob

Rob

It's possible because foreknowledge doesn't equal foreordination! You can't get your brain around this.

My Brain is working fine at the moment. Thanks.

What I am trying to show you is that this isn't true of a creator. If you are the creator and you have foreknowledge you essentially foreordained all that would happen by your knowing ahead of time what would happen and setting that path of events up. It is inescapable

And your answer is far from acceptable. Maybe I am not explaining it well, let me try again: You say we are designed to sin. You say we are designed with freewill. Being designed to sin means we will sin, by design. Being designed with freewill means we are designed to think about it. The two cannot be one.

Let me ask you to explain, if man were truly free, what would have happened had Adam not sinned. What if he were alive and well today? He wouldn't be a sinner, so he wouldn't require grace. Does that put a pinch on God's plan that flesh cannot be born of spirit? Or do you revert back to saying that it was impossible for Adam to remain sinless (designed to sin)?

This is where you lose it. He can't foresee changes that aren't made yet. He's the only one who can change the future. Now do you understand?
......
...God foresaw what would happen, but until that time, it didn't happen. God could change the outcome up to that point. God knew, given the circumstances, that Adam would eventually sin...

Rob, this is not a Settled View. It is an open view. The difference is that you say it applies to God only, We say it applies to anything.

Your open view/settled view mix on this aspect of God seems at best ridiculous and at least unprovable bible wise.

You accuse the O.V. of stripping powers from God, and yet you did just that. If God can see the future, he sees his own future. How and why would God prevent himself from seeing his own actions? That's the biggest paradox i have heard in a looong time.

Your value of freewill might be overdone. It might be loving to create something with freewill, but it might also be better not to if you know that creation is better off not even being born.

God designed man with freewill and allowed man to use it however man wanted to use it.

....

I know you don't want to accept it, but you believe it just as I do. Living the 'what if' fantasy of a Utopia doesn't answer how flesh becomes spirit. Jesus Christ does.

Rob, your view of the flesh is viewed only through today's reality. Flesh today means something different from when Adam said it. "This is flesh of my flesh" and "flesh cannot give birth to spirit" are two different aspects of flesh.

When a child is born, it has a spirit. Flesh gave birth to flesh with that new flesh having a spirit too, so flesh gave birth to spirit. Jesus wasn't talking literal here. He is trying to explain how you can be born again after you are a sinner.

Jesus message was to sinners. You have to take what he says in that context always. Had anyone ever been born who wasn't a sinner, that man wouldn't need his to be born again for eternal life. That explains my "utopia" just fine.

 

[patman]

Does that put a pinch on God's plan that flesh cannot be born of spirit? Or do you revert back to saying that it was impossible for Adam to remain sinless (designed to sin)?

Please forgive the brain laps here. I should have said spirit cannot be born of flesh.

 

[RobE]

And your answer is far from acceptable. Maybe I am not explaining it well, let me try again: You say we are designed to sin. You say we are designed with freewill. Being designed to sin means we will sin, by design. Being designed with freewill means we are designed to think about it. The two cannot be one.

Being designed with freewill gives us the ability to sin. So if you sin with your free will and God designed you(being the creator) then, according to Open Theism, isn't God responsible for sin? Same question back to you without foreknowledge.

Let me ask you to explain, if man were truly free, what would have happened had Adam not sinned. What if he were alive and well today? He wouldn't be a sinner, so he wouldn't require grace. Does that put a pinch on God's plan that flesh cannot be born of spirit? Or do you revert back to saying that it was impossible for Adam to remain sinless (designed to sin)?

Is it possible for Adam to not have sinned after being given free will? To err is human.....

Your open view/settled view mix on this aspect of God seems at best ridiculous and at least unprovable bible wise.

Yet it's the only position that ratifies 'ALL' the Bible without exception.

You accuse the O.V. of stripping powers from God, and yet you did just that. If God can see the future, he sees his own future. How and why would God prevent himself from seeing his own actions? That's the biggest paradox i have heard in a looong time.

That's because you want to make God 'non-relational', less powerful, and not 'all' knowing. The fact is that God can see the future as a matter of history. He didn't create it alone, but He can change it(only because He knows what it is). You can't change A to B unless you know what A is to begin with.

Your value of freewill might be overdone. It might be loving to create something with freewill, but it might also be better not to if you know that creation is better off not even being born.

That's why Open Theism would require God to destory Adam when Adam sinned for God to be Loving.

Rob, your view of the flesh is viewed only through today's reality. Flesh today means something different from when Adam said it. "This is flesh of my flesh" and "flesh cannot give birth to spirit" are two different aspects of flesh.

Here your wrong. Spirit is Spirit. Flesh is Flesh.

When a child is born, it has a spirit. Flesh gave birth to flesh with that new flesh having a spirit too, so flesh gave birth to spirit. Jesus wasn't talking literal here. He is trying to explain how you can be born again after you are a sinner.

Wrong. God 'breathed' Spirit into Adam. Look in Genesis. Life begets life. Flesh begets flesh. Spirit begets Spirit.

Jesus message was to sinners. You have to take what he says in that context always. Had anyone ever been born who wasn't a sinner, that man wouldn't need his to be born again for eternal life. That explains my "utopia" just fine.

Jesus message was to mankind. All men have sinned. Non have been worthy except Jesus Christ. Vine and Branches. What's the creation apart from the Creator? If a man had not sinned, that man would have been God(and was God).

This is the type of tenet which belongs in Mormonism, JW, deism, etc......

Friends,

Rob

 

[patman]

Being designed with freewill gives us the ability to sin. So if you sin with your free will and God designed you(being the creator) then, according to Open Theism, isn't God responsible for sin? Same question back to you without foreknowledge.

I really wish you'd answer the question with out throwing it back at me first.

My answer is probably the same as yours. But I wish I could make you see that your answer is, at worst, not probable when you attach the attribute of absolute foreknowledge to it.

We agree that God is loving, powerful, just, and truthful. But saying these means you must believe that God will live accordingly.

Is it right to create man to be imperfect? Then put him in a situation that he will fail? And then condem him for it? And then after setting him up dangle a line that he may or may not be able to reach due to the distance that he was setup to fall?

That is your message, and it ain't right!

Open Theism says man was created perfect. Man purposefully became imperfect. And then God condemned him for that. But not before he threw a line, made of the blood, to save those who would swim back from where they went by their own actions.

Is it possible for Adam to not have sinned after being given free will? To err is human.....

Rob, God said he even created Satan perfect, that is before he fell and became what he is. How much more so would God create man to be perfect? It has become our nature to err, but it is not our created nature. Agree?

That's because you want to make God 'non-relational', less powerful, and not 'all' knowing. The fact is that God can see the future as a matter of history. He didn't create it alone, but He can change it(only because He knows what it is). You can't change A to B unless you know what A is to begin with.

The Future is a matter of history, and the past is not changeable (by our own power), that means the future is not. We are trapped to do what we are going to do no matter what we think we are controlling. This burden is to much to carry, even with God's help.

You accuse me of making God non rational. Far be it from me. I accuse you of reading to much into the bible. You say God knew Adam would sin, I say that isn't presented in the bible and do not assume such.

I have presented to you and Bling much bible to back up the claims I make. Bling is the only one answering those. If you are so adamant about being one of the few in this site that understands there are things you don't understand, why would you add to the bible when you recognize you don't know it all?

That's why Open Theism would require God to destory Adam when Adam sinned for God to be Loving.

Not when he sinned. Before he sinned. Way before!! Before he was even created. And not destroy. Just pass by in creation. Not even do it.

I do not say that without proof. After seeing the results of Adam, God was grieved so much he wished he never created man. That's a bible verse I have pointed out many times.

I find that it has been ignored. Probably because it doesn't fit into the settled say of thinking. After all, how can God have such a good time creating, being so positive about it, calling it very good and all, be an unchanging God, knowing the future, and at the same time be grieved in his heart that he created man who is on the earth?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 6:5-7;&version=50;

Here your wrong. Spirit is Spirit. Flesh is Flesh.

Rob, The real point you are missing is that you are taking this verse and running with it. You are taking it way out of context. I wish you would comment on that more than anything else.

Again, Jesus was trying to explain how a sinner may be born again.... That's it. Why take it farther? Oh... because it's the best you have to prove the point I guess.

Wrong. God 'breathed' Spirit into Adam. Look in Genesis. Life begets life. Flesh begets flesh. Spirit begets Spirit.

So when flesh gives birth to flesh, that new flesh doesn't have a spirit??? Huh.

John 3:1-21 NKJV
1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
___________________________
How can one enter the kingdom?

By being born again.

How can one be born again?

Because I will be lifted so you can be saved.

What is being born again? Can a man be reborn from his mother's womb?

That's not what is being said, we aren't talking about fleshly birth, but a spirit birth.. restarting your life through the Spirit made possible by me. Those who are born of the Spirit are like the wind, you don't know where it has been before or where it is going, but you can hear it and you know it's there.

How can this be?

You don't get it? After all We have told you through the years!? And I tried to put this in earthly context, and you still don't believe it? How can I tell you heavenly things? Again, the son of man will be lifted up that the world will be saved from their sin. But some will be afraid of showing their sin to allow themselves to be saved from it.
___________________________

Above I attempted to paraphrase the word. And as much stretching as I did, that's the best I can stretch the words without changing their meanings completely. As you can see, the point isn't why Adam was required to sin at all. I simply cannot get what you are getting out of it, Rob.

Jesus message was to mankind. All men have sinned. Non have been worthy except Jesus Christ. Vine and Branches. What's the creation apart from the Creator? If a man had not sinned, that man would have been God(and was God).

This is the type of tenet which belongs in Mormonism, JW, deism, etc......

Matthew 9:12-13
12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Your word vs. Christ's. His message was to sinners according to him. You apparently disagree with him. Another bold move.

Matthew 18:3
and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

What if one of those children died right after Jesus said that of them? Were they sinners? Do they need to be saved from their sin?

Surely we are nothing without God, but sinners need forgiveness, the righteous do not. Needing God to be something and needing God to be forgiven are not one in the same. You should divide the word better than this.

Any time a child dies, he goes straight to God, as he is innocent and he never needed forgiveness to get there. He still needs Christ, but not for the same things we sinners need him for. We need Christ for forgiveness, they need him for love and the other things that we need also, only we get it through grace.

God made us perfect, we perverted that, God didn't see how it would happen, he didn't require it to happen, and he doesn't unjustly condemn the innocent or require forgiveness of those who need no forgiving.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
Your argument for Adam and Eve's fellowship not being enough is good. Adam and Eve clearly didn't love God or they wouldn't have sinned. That means when they cut off the fellowship, they cut off the love.

I do not see Adam and Eve not loving God like children love a wonderful parent, they just did not Godly love God. Good kids with great parents still at some point disobey their parents, but it is not because they do not have a child’s love for a parent. We have nothing that says Adam and Eve cut off their fellowship with God and we do not ever see them developing a decision type love for God. Adam and Eve would have had an extinctive type love that God would have given them (love those that do good to you.)

Originally Posted by Patman
Fellowship and love go hand and hand. Where there is no love, there is no fellowship. Where there is Fellowship there is love. The thing about love is that it doesn't require fellowship in all it's parts. Some aspects of love do require fellowship. Others don't. By requiring fellowship, you are requiring many aspects of love.

Will I am back to saying you can fellowship with lesser loves then Godly love. I go back to the story of extremely wonderful Christ like parents with Christ indwelling them fully and their children in full fellowship with them and yet the children disobey the parents.

Originally Posted by Patman
Adam and Eve didn't love God once they ended their fellowship with him. Up until them, I am sure they loved God in many areas. It was their decision to stop loving God that ended the fellowship. And that decision was considered sin.

We have talked about different loves often and scripture uses different words for different love to some extent (there are 4 words in Greek and I think there are 14 different words in German, while English has the one). Godly type love is very different then all the other types of love, because it takes everything, is a commitment with choices, it is sacrificial, and selfless. That type of love was never developed by Adam and Eve and may have been impossible to develop in humans in the Garden. All other loves seem to be present with Adam and Eve. The sin has to do with eating the fruit not fellowship, they were not punished for not loving God or not fellowshipping God, but disobeying God. It appears they would have liked to stay in the Garden and been in fellowship with God or there would be no need to guard the garden, just remove the tree of life.

Originally Posted by Patman
God want's a love from us that includes fellowship. God want's a fellowship form us that includes love.

Yes, Godly love.

Originally Posted by Patman
You claim that our objective of love means we need sin. We need sin because it shows us we are forgiven. You go on to say our being shown what love is goes along with our growing process. I.E. We learn from our experiences when we are free to choose.
Originally Posted by Patman
I agree with everything except the needing sin part. I say we do not need sin to understand and to grow and to learn and to be free. We simply need the freedom to sin, not sin itself.
Originally Posted by Patman
That said, you believe we need sin for our objective. That must mean God created us such that we would find sin so we could fulfill that objective, is this what you think?
Originally Posted by Patman
If no, please explain how God intended for us to meet our objective if he wasn't going to see to it that it happen?

Let me try to answer all four of these comments with an analogy:
Parents have a choice to: not have children, to have children and raise them to be immature pets and not mature (this would be abusive) or to have and raise children to maturity and give them the best opportunity to develop Godly type love for God. Now the last choice is what God desires of us, but that also means each and every one that reaches maturity will sin. So did you raise up your children to sin (NO), do you want them to sin (NO), will you allow them to sin (YES, you really can’t stop them), do you know they will sin (YES), could you do anything to keep them from sinning (not without keeping them from maturing). Did you then have children so they would sin? Will their sin help them: to need a savior, understand the power of Satan and sin, see how bad sin is, have a need for the indwelling Spirit, feel the burden of sin and the relieve that comes with sin being removed, relate to the world better (we are all sinners), be able to witness to others God’s forgiving love, and be able to learn from their mistakes. The idea is for them to become strong loving Christians in a very hostel world and to do that they will sin.

God is making millions of people each week that will sin, in fact everyone of them that reaches maturity will sin. God could stop making people or could change the way people are made to be robotic pets, but He want all to have the opportunity to love Him, with some developing a very wonder all consuming Godly type love for Him and others.

Now I see: The situation we are in today is the best situation I can imagine for developing Godly type love for God and others. We do sin in the situation today.

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

I do not see Adam and Eve not loving God like children love a wonderful parent, they just did not Godly love God. Good kids with great parents still at some point disobey their parents, but it is not because they do not have a child’s love for a parent. We have nothing that says Adam and Eve cut off their fellowship with God and we do not ever see them developing a decision type love for God. Adam and Eve would have had an extinctive type love that God would have given them (love those that do good to you.)

Will I am back to saying you can fellowship with lesser loves then Godly love. I go back to the story of extremely wonderful Christ like parents with Christ indwelling them fully and their children in full fellowship with them and yet the children disobey the parents.

We have talked about different loves often and scripture uses different words for different love to some extent (there are 4 words in Greek and I think there are 14 different words in German, while English has the one). Godly type love is very different then all the other types of love, because it takes everything, is a commitment with choices, it is sacrificial, and selfless. That type of love was never developed by Adam and Eve and may have been impossible to develop in humans in the Garden. All other loves seem to be present with Adam and Eve. The sin has to do with eating the fruit not fellowship, they were not punished for not loving God or not fellowshipping God, but disobeying God. It appears they would have liked to stay in the Garden and been in fellowship with God or there would be no need to guard the garden, just remove the tree of life.

Yes, Godly love.


Let me try to answer all four of these comments with an analogy:
Parents have a choice to: not have children, to have children and raise them to be immature pets and not mature (this would be abusive) or to have and raise children to maturity and give them the best opportunity to develop Godly type love for God. Now the last choice is what God desires of us, but that also means each and every one that reaches maturity will sin. So did you raise up your children to sin (NO), do you want them to sin (NO), will you allow them to sin (YES, you really can’t stop them), do you know they will sin (YES), could you do anything to keep them from sinning (not without keeping them from maturing). Did you then have children so they would sin? Will their sin help them: to need a savior, understand the power of Satan and sin, see how bad sin is, have a need for the indwelling Spirit, feel the burden of sin and the relieve that comes with sin being removed, relate to the world better (we are all sinners), be able to witness to others God’s forgiving love, and be able to learn from their mistakes. The idea is for them to become strong loving Christians in a very hostel world and to do that they will sin.

God is making millions of people each week that will sin, in fact everyone of them that reaches maturity will sin. God could stop making people or could change the way people are made to be robotic pets, but He want all to have the opportunity to love Him, with some developing a very wonder all consuming Godly type love for Him and others.

Now I see: The situation we are in today is the best situation I can imagine for developing Godly type love for God and others. We do sin in the situation today.

Thank you bling.

I know you do not agree with my full assessment of fellowship being an avenue to love, including Godly love. And you have your reasons. As for me, your reasons are not enough to make me change my mind. I hope we can agree to disagree on this point for now and move on.

What is important is that we both recognize God wants love, including Godly love, AND fellowship with us. Both are desired by God. And this is enough for me to represent my original point:

God's Purpose For the Tree
God in the garden desired a "loving relationship" with Adam and Eve but did not force Adam and Eve to meet those desires. He gave them a choice as to how they can participate in the relationship and to participate in that love. Why? Because a loving relationship and the expressing of love is voluntary. If God did not allow them to volunteer their love, he would be unloving, and our inability to choose would not result in a true love for us..

He made that choice in form of a tree that they could freely eat of. Eating of the tree was forbidden, but not restricted. Why? Because if they freely eat of the tree, they would be breaking a command, and would become sinners. Becoming sinners means they are separated from God. The act of sinning is an act of non-lovingness towards God, it also means they are free to no longer love God.

By the very definition of being separated, they would have a way to reject the fellowship and love God offered. They could have freedom in God or freedom from God, depending on if they ate of this tree or not. Moreover, the knowledge of good and evil leads to more sin, but not by nature, but by sin's nature. The law was good, but sin advantage of it. Humans who are separated from God need this internal law to get by without God, lest they sin forever and never know better.

Also, having the law in their heart gives them a way back to God should they want to return. Knowing the law means you know you are a sinner in need of God. So the tree offers a way out, and the knowledge of good and evil offers a way back should you choose.


The point was love. God hoped they wouldn't eat of the tree and wouldn't sin. But God had to remain loving even if they weren't loving back, as that is what love does. So that is why he gave the the law through the very tree that separated them from God, as they no longer would look to God for the law but to themselves.

Now for scripture to back up what I believe:

John 3:20
For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Isaiah 59:2
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.

Genesis 2
15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 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.” ..............25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 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. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. ................ 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”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

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. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Matthew 22
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Psalm 94:19-22
19 In the multitude of my anxieties within me,
Your comforts delight my soul.
20 Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law,
Have fellowship with You?
21 They gather together against the life of the righteous,
And condemn innocent blood.
22 But the LORD has been my defense,
And my God the rock of my refuge.

1 Corinthians 1:9
God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

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. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[a] 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.
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

1 Timothy 1:8-16
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

1 Corinthians 13
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

I hope the above verses will help you understand why I explain it like I do. And once again I wish you would stop calling sin necessary to develop Godly love.

I do have a verse that should help you do so. It is in 1 Cor 13:3, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[] but have not love, it profits me nothing."

You have said on many occasions that sin is needed to produce Godly love because sin produces a need, and with that need love may be expressed. But as noted by the verse above, you can still fill needs and not have love. Interesting to note, because having a need does not produce love, but having love in your heart does.

Needs are not what produces love, Bling. Even though sin does produce needs, it is not good to have those needs, and it is not a guarentee that those needs will produce true love.

Instead love comes from the heart, soul, mind and spirit of a person. It doesn't need sin.

If you say sin is needed to produce love, you are borderline calling sin good, as it is necessary. And that is something you seem to borderline often with your message. Please, once again, reconsider.

Thanks
-Pat

 

[bling]

Patman, I started to address your response, but had a question I hope you can answer to help me:

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.

This and other passages say very clearly and without question, that God is saying, “all mature adult humans have and will sin.” Is God able to say this (by your understanding), because all have received the knowledge of good and evil or is there another reason?

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Patman, I started to address your response, but had a question I hope you can answer to help me:

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.

This and other passages say very clearly and without question, that God is saying, “all mature adult humans have and will sin.” Is God able to say this (by your understanding), because all have received the knowledge of good and evil or is there another reason?

Romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Our conscience reveals the law written on our hearts. Even if we do not have the law of Moses, we still have the law on our hearts. And when we sin, our conscience lets us know we did wrong.

As mentioned in the last post, sin takes opportunity of knowing right and wrong to produce wrong.

Romans 7:8
But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

Put the two of these together and you get your answer. Because of the tree, all men have a conscience that tells them what is right and wrong. And because of sin's nature, it takes advantage of that to produce desires that lead to sin. This is the plague of mature humans who live long enough to live out their desires.

I must add that those humans who die before getting the chance to sin enter heaven sinless. They shed their flesh and their desires are left behind. It would be much easier for humans in heaven to resist sin.

 

[RobE]

Patrick,

I'm going to start shortening these posts for clarity sake.

I'll answer a couple of sections. Please ask for the answers that you want that I don't answer.

We agree that God is loving, powerful, just, and truthful. But saying these means you must believe that God will live accordingly.

Is it right to create man to be imperfect? Then put him in a situation that he will fail? And then condem him for it? And then after setting him up dangle a line that he may or may not be able to reach due to the distance that he was setup to fall?

That is your message, and it ain't right!

Man was created 'Good' and man's design was perfect because it was from God. Part of that perfections was the ability in man to develop Godly love through trial and error(also known as free will). Perfection is only reachable by God, so that's the system God made to ensure man's survival.

Open Theism says man was created perfect. Man purposefully became imperfect. And then God condemned him for that. But not before he threw a line, made of the blood, to save those who would swim back from where they went by their own actions.

Rob, God said he even created Satan perfect, that is before he fell and became what he is. How much more so would God create man to be perfect? It has become our nature to err, but it is not our created nature. Agree?

If it wasn't in Adam's nature then how did it happen? Adam erred. Therefore Adam had the ability to err. He wasn't perfect in the sense that you're portraying Adam. Adam was perfect in design, created by perfection Himself.

God made us perfect, we perverted that, God didn't see how it would happen, he didn't require it to happen, and he doesn't unjustly condemn the innocent or require forgiveness of those who need no forgiving.

So God was surprised that a creature with freewill would excercise that same will negatively. Which theology seems shallow in this light?

Matthew 9:12-13
12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Your word vs. Christ's. His message was to sinners according to him. You apparently disagree with him. Another bold move.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sound familiar. Let's not parse. I never disagree with Jesus Christ. When He said 'None know the hour and day except the Father'. I believe Him. Do You?

Friends,

Rob

 

[RobE]

Patrick,

Where does the Law come from?

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

 

[RobE]

Originally Posted by RobE

That's why Open Theism would require God to destory Adam when Adam sinned for God to be Loving.

Patrick's Reply

Not when he sinned. Before he sinned. Way before!! Before he was even created. And not destroy. Just pass by in creation. Not even do it.​

Why do you keep ignoring this point? Listen carefully.

1)If God does NOT foreknow the future then why wouldn't He kill Adam after the fall and start over with a new sinless creation? Do you understand this?

2)Why would God allow Adam to procreate after Adam became sinful?
_______________

Can you guess my answer after these many weeks?

Yours,
Rob