BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[RobE]

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..

Clete's definition of free will is 'the ability to do or do otherwise'. Without the knowledge of Good and Evil; how could man choose to be good or evil? Without that knowledge man wouldn't have free will. He therefore could not develop free 'mature' love. With me? Do you see Open Theism's duplicity, yet?

Thanks Bling, Patman

Rob

 

[bling]

Thank you, Patman,

Originally Posted by Patman
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:

OK

Originally Posted by Patman
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..

And without Adam and Eve making the real choice to Godly love with alternatives not to love Adam and Eve could not take one of the steps to Godly loving God. We have no indication that Adam and Eve ever made the decision to Godly love God, but they would love God instinctively loved (loving those that do great things for you) and as good kids love a wonderful parent. In fact it seams very early in their stay in the Garden the devil temps them with the alternative to Godly loving and they take it, suggesting Godly love never developed.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

Sin is the result of lacking love and not allowing the Spirit to lead you. It takes a very special type love (Godly love) to be able to keep from sinning. Godly love is not instinctive, requires thought, must be experienced, understood deeply, takes commitment, and may push a persons logic to be illogical to the world.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

The Bible does not say Eve or Adam sinned to be free from God. It is not suggested Adam and Eve did not appreciate what God had done or love the Garden. The Bible does give us the specific motives of Eve for her sinning and Satan did not tempt Eve with freedom from God or leaving the Garden. She sinned out of lust and coveting. The law (and even the law not to eat) has always been for man’s best interest.

Originally Posted by Patman
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 law shows you how much you need a forgiving loving God, how weak you really are, how selfish we are, and how difficult it is to please God with works. The law does not present grace/ forgiveness, love is all through it, but the school master only shows us the need for grace and is not grace itself. We have to turn to God directly and depend on His mercy that exceeds the law.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

The law does not work, but it does show them that the law does not work (it is not the laws fault, the law is wonderful). Man can not obey the law no matter how hard he tries, so he must turn to God pleating for mercy, which God wants to grant, God will extend that mercy, then man can experience forgiveness, feel loved in spite of his behavior and weakness, understand selflessness of God, understand sacrificial love, and see this type love as a decision on God’s part that is not deserved to be extended to man.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

Read all the scriptures you listed, but this one in particular I am curious about how you interpret. Do you think our first regrettable sin means we are practicing evil or does that come later with a real desire to be evil?

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

These verse tell us we will sin, because the law is Spiritual, it will show us what all is sin. Paul points out: Rm. 7: 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.

The law (even the one law of do not eat) is Spiritual, but humans even Adam and Eve are carnal. God would realize this.
As far as the objective of sin, I hope I do not allow my preconceived ideas and prejudges to influence my thinking.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

Sin produces a lot of stuff; one being a need for the individual for God’s forgiveness. Sin allow us to see the contrast between good and evil. How we are helpless to fight off sin ourselves.
More specific to your question:
I don’t see it saying Godly love does not need needy people to be expressed on earth. It is saying you can fulfill needs of people without Godly love. Jesus tells us things like serving your friends that can pay you back is not the love He is looking for from us. Doing good for others to be seen of others is not the love He is looking for. Doing good without sacrificing is not the love Jesus desires.
Other ideas that may apply:
Yes, you can do a lot of stuff without love. There were no needy people for other people to serve in the Garden, God was providing for their every need. Sin caused limited sources and limited time for humans. This did provide a way for people to sacrifice for others, be like God expression of love in serving others. I did not say everyone that helps the needy has love or will develop Godly love. Some people serve others with what Christ describes as a friendship type love, so at some later time they might be served. Some serve others as a part of their works for salvation or to get ahead. Some do it because they are or feel obligated, this can even be a parent for a child. The only beneficial motivation for humans is Godly type love.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

There is no guarantee, as you say. Needy people allow the Good Samaritan story to ring true, we see love in action here on earth, we can experience Godly love working through us as we help others or as we are being helped, Godly love grows with use and needy people provide a way to use Godly love similar to the way God does for us. We have a reason to sacrifice for others. You are right there are no guarantees, man will take the opportunities God has provided in this world.
Originally Posted by Patman
Instead love comes from the heart, soul, mind and spirit of a person. It doesn't need sin.

A lot of stuff comes from sin, but these are all opportunities and not guaranteed results.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

I never said sin is good, but that does not say it is not needed to produce Godly love for humans on earth. I have given you analogies with parenting which you did not address, so I assume you agree. Also, I have given ideas on Satan and Jesus going to the cross that suggest Good can come out of evil, without much argument. It has been said, by Knight and others that Satan is allowed to remain here on earth for some good reason, which applies to good people. Sin could have a similar good reason. I just read what you said about all mature adults sinning. I am not positive yet on your ideas, but it sounds like God knows all will sin because they are carnal and have a conscience that is the knowledge of good and evil. I agree with you.
Now, from Paul’s explanation of coveting, sin happens very rapidly after the knowledge and understanding of that knowledge develops. God with His knowledge would have realized this even before He created the first human; it is a very easy concept. Now you have said if Adam and Eve had not sinned for a time that over time God would have given them this knowledge of good and evil yet they remain carnal, so does that not mean they would have to sin like everyone else?

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

And without Adam and Eve making the real choice to Godly love with alternatives not to love Adam and Eve could not take one of the steps to Godly loving God.

Indeed. A real choice is needed in order for love to exist. We cannot be forced into sin, and we cannot be forced into love. If we were "fixed" to reject love, or if we were "fixed" to require love, we would not truly love in the end.

That goes without saying. But it also stands to reason we cannot truly love if we don't have a free choice to reject sin.

We have no indication that Adam and Eve ever made the decision to Godly love God, but they would love God instinctively loved (loving those that do great things for you) and as good kids love a wonderful parent. In fact it seams very early in their stay in the Garden the devil temps them with the alternative to Godly loving and they take it, suggesting Godly love never developed.

You added the word "Godly" before love, not I. I agree that "Godly" can be put in front of it, but I simply say "love," without narrowing it to only one type of love. I said that God allowed Adam and Eve a choice to love him or reject him by sinning or not sinning.

Now that we have that cleared up, let me again represent how the Bible does say what I have presented.

I was worried that you wouldn't see it in the verses I presented before, so I will try again with a little more explanation:

The following is talking about Adam and Eve.

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,

Adam and Eve and those to follow them clearly understood God.

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.


Remember the decision Eve made? She thought she would be wise if she sinned and ate of the tree. The sin was worth it to her.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

It backfired. They thought they were wise, but they were fools for what they did.

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.

They rejected God so far that they gave up worship of him for things of this world.

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.

The rest shows how bad it got. And it is going on to this day.

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.

You can use this verse above. The reason she sinned was to gain her own wisdom. She has a lot of other reasons, and the moment Adam ate, he knew right and wrong.

What is right and wrong that exists in mans heart? It is an internal law. What law existed before this internal law? The one command he gave man, "do not eat of the tree," was the extent of the law given to man.

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.

Why would God give man a law? There are many reasons, for his protection is one. But it is also a gage to measure man's love for God. And in that, once man shows his unwillingness to love, law is used to convict man.

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.

Why is law only around after sin enters the world and not before? Because the law is made for the unrighteous, and useful to help man in a world that God "can't be a part of" because of man's sin. Man is on his own, separated from God because of sin.

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.

Wicked man needs the law to know what he should do with certainty, and what he should not do. He needs to know that it is good to do the things Adam and Eve clearly understood from creation. That you should love God. That God wants a relationship with you.

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.”

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

God desires both love and relationship. Adam and Eve were undoubtedly giving both up by sin. God was wise in presenting man with the choice to sin in such a way that would equipped man with the knowledge of good and evil in a life to follow that was not lived with him. Adam and Eve did not fully understand grace, Christ's future sacrifice, and all of God's plans.

They understood God's power and their place. The day they ate, they died in many ways. Their relationship with God, as they knew it, died. The spiritual wholeness they once had died. The blessings died. But despite what Adam and Eve knew would die, these things did happen.

I hope you can see that what they knew doesn't matter, but what God knew would happen does. He knew they were not retuning the love he needed from them if they decided to sin. He knew they could not fulfill that relationship he desired if they sinned. He knew what choice they made if the walked the alternative path he allowed them to have.

It's about God's design, not what Adam and Eve thought or knew.

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Clete's definition of free will is 'the ability to do or do otherwise'. Without the knowledge of Good and Evil; how could man choose to be good or evil? Without that knowledge man wouldn't have free will. He therefore could not develop free 'mature' love. With me? Do you see Open Theism's duplicity, yet?

Thanks Bling, Patman

Rob

Rob, when I first started chatting with you, you seemed on a mission to understand open thesism. How do you grade yourself?

I grade you poorly. You know that we generally reject God's 100% future knowledge, but the rest, you are not getting.

For example, you think we believe a change in God is a change in his character? Who said that? I didn't.

You also were mistakenly accusing us of being of other theological standards that are nothing like us at all.

In the past you thought we didn't believe God can know any of the future. And at times I think you still say so.

So to answer this question, NO, there is problem with the OV. I have said so many times that we would rely on God in the garden for our knowledge of right and wrong. God set up a situation that if we did sin, we would have the right and wrong once we fell in our own heart. Read what I have said to bling for more information.

You have missed the points I have stated. But instead I am accused by you of missing your "perfect" points. Lets explore.

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.

I had hoped you would put two and two together easier. The S.V. version of God, in order to be loving, would not create something that turns out so evil even if a few good came from it, and I site Gen when God was grieved that he even made Man.

But instead, God didn't know he would be grieved that he made man, so he would abide by his love instead. allowing man to be free, no worry of God cutting him off completely.

This situation is the only likely one if God doesn't know the outcome and is loving. The before is more likely if God knows the future and is loving.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
That goes without saying. But it also stands to reason we cannot truly love if we don't have a free choice to reject sin.

Has any mature adult since Adam and Eve been able to reject ever sinning besides Christ? Will any mature adult be able to reject sinning?

Originally Posted by Patman
You added the word "Godly" before love, not I. I agree that "Godly" can be put in front of it, but I simply say "love," without narrowing it to only one type of love. I said that God allowed Adam and Eve a choice to love him or reject him by sinning or not sinning.

When Christ is asked to define what love your neighbor meant, He gave the story of the Good Samaritan. When we look at the love commands of “all” we got, that love is extreme not shallow type loves. I am making a huge distinction between love and Godly love, but I see Christ in examples and parables and Paul in first Cor. 13 making those same distinctions. Godly loving God can keep you from sinning, but just loving God with some lesser form of love will not keep you from sinning.

Originally Posted by Patman
Now that we have that cleared up, let me again represent how the Bible does say what I have presented.

I was worried that you wouldn't see it in the verses I presented before, so I will try again with a little more explanation:

The following is talking about Adam and Eve.

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,

Adam and Eve and those to follow them clearly understood God.

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.


Remember the decision Eve made? She thought she would be wise if she sinned and ate of the tree. The sin was worth it to her.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

It backfired. They thought they were wise, but they were fools for what they did.

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.

They rejected God so far that they gave up worship of him for things of this world.

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.

The rest shows how bad it got. And it is going on to this day.

I think Rm. 1 20 and 21 can pertain to Adam and Eve, but I do not see Adam and Eve professing to be wise (they seemed to think they would get wise) or making graven images or worshipping creatures.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

You can use this verse above. The reason she sinned was to gain her own wisdom. She has a lot of other reasons, and the moment Adam ate, he knew right and wrong.

What is right and wrong that exists in mans heart? It is an internal law. What law existed before this internal law? The one command he gave man, "do not eat of the tree," was the extent of the law given to man.

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.

Why would God give man a law? There are many reasons, for his protection is one. But it is also a gage to measure man's love for God. And in that, once man shows his unwillingness to love, law is used to convict man.

Man being convicted would be for man’s sac, also. Man would realize He does not love God to the degree God desires (this is something God would know from the heart of man).
Originally Posted by Patman
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.

Why is law only around after sin enters the world and not before? Because the law is made for the unrighteous, and useful to help man in a world that God "can't be a part of" because of man's sin. Man is on his own, separated from God because of sin.

There was a law in the Garden before man sinned. There are many more laws after the sin. So, does that mean Adam and Eve before they sinned were not righteous? Was it known they would be insubordinate? Did this scripture apply to Adam and Eve before they sinned?

Originally Posted by Patman
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.

Wicked man needs the law to know what he should do with certainty, and what he should not do. He needs to know that it is good to do the things Adam and Eve clearly understood from creation. That you should love God. That God wants a relationship with you.

I think we have very little of what was communicated to Adam and Eve in the form of preprogramming of their brains, words directly, the Garden itself and just being with God. I do think Godly love would have been the main subject, unfortunately the Garden is an extremely difficult place to experience Godly love in contrast to other loves and evil.

Originally Posted by Patman
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.”

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

God desires both love and relationship. Adam and Eve were undoubtedly giving both up by sin. God was wise in presenting man with the choice to sin in such a way that would equipped man with the knowledge of good and evil in a life to follow that was not lived with him. Adam and Eve did not fully understand grace, Christ's future sacrifice, and all of God's plans.

They understood God's power and their place. The day they ate, they died in many ways. Their relationship with God, as they knew it, died. The spiritual wholeness they once had died. The blessings died. But despite what Adam and Eve knew would die, these things did happen.

I hope you can see that what they knew doesn't matter, but what God knew would happen does. He knew they were not retuning the love he needed from them if they decided to sin. He knew they could not fulfill that relationship he desired if they sinned. He knew what choice they made if the walked the alternative path he allowed them to have.

It's about God's design, not what Adam and Eve thought or knew.

God desires a lot of stuff from man, but all must be motivated by Godly type love for Him. You said, “Adam and Eve did not fully understand grace, Christ's future sacrifice, and all of God's plans.” Those concepts are extremely important to developing Godly love, you might also include have the burden of sin removed, being forgiven, serving others with limited resources, evil, being in need (Adam may have felt some of this before Eve came around) and others experience as humans with God.

You said: “He knew they could not fulfill that relationship he desired if they sinned.” Christ dying for our sins on the cross enables all men everywhere and throughout time to have as close a relationship as any person down through history has had. All of them had sinned prior to developing (and even after developing) a Godly loving relationship. We have eternity to be with God.

It is about developing Godly love for God and others and God doing all He can to help man fulfill that objective.

 

[RobE]

For example, you think we believe a change in God is a change in his character? Who said that? I didn't.

No Open Theism says that God's evolving. They say a change in mind is a change in Him.

You also were mistakenly accusing us of being of other theological standards that are nothing like us at all.

For example....

In the past you thought we didn't believe God can know any of the future. And at times I think you still say so.

If God knows some of the future why can't He know all the future?

You have missed the points I have stated. But instead I am accused by you of missing your "perfect" points. Lets explore.

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.​

I hope you can see that your reply didn't answer my question. You just told me the answer for the closed view. I didn't ask for it. Try again?

Rob

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Has any mature adult since Adam and Eve been able to reject ever sinning besides Christ? Will any mature adult be able to reject sinning?

No. All will sin. Why? Because we have the law, which sin takes advantage of through desires and finds ways of perverting the good things it says to do and the good things God put here for us.

Adam was different. He had only one law, one he could have kept had he wanted to.

I know we all sin, but we do not commit every sin. There are many sins we can resist. For example, I can resist murder. I can resist adultery. I do not have to give into the sins just because they are there. Many can say they did resist the sin to murder. And that prooves my point, there are some sins that people won't commit and can resist.

Adam could resist eating of the tree, the one law. But he let sin win, not out of obligation, but out of his own desires.

I think Rm. 1 20 and 21 can pertain to Adam and Eve, but I do not see Adam and Eve professing to be wise (they seemed to think they would get wise) or making graven images or worshipping creatures.

There was a law in the Garden before man sinned. There are many more laws after the sin. So, does that mean Adam and Eve before they sinned were not righteous? Was it known they would be insubordinate? Did this scripture apply to Adam and Eve before they sinned?

I believe this applies to Adam and Eve, and those who followed. But especially them two. It speaks as to what they became, you can assume they started out as good, see as how God even created Lucifer as good.

Adam and Eve were perfect before they sinned, I would assume they were righteous as well. Only until the traded it for sin.

God desires a lot of stuff from man, but all must be motivated by Godly type love for Him. You said, “Adam and Eve did not fully understand grace, Christ's future sacrifice, and all of God's plans.” Those concepts are extremely important to developing Godly love, you might also include have the burden of sin removed, being forgiven, serving others with limited resources, evil, being in need (Adam may have felt some of this before Eve came around) and others experience as humans with God.

Bling, according to YOU they are important. But according to the scripture I gave you, love doesn't come from circumstance, but rather from the heart. Remember, 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 say that sin creates the right circumstances for love. I say no way. I say love can exist even without "needy people." You may not see it in that verse, but it is clearly saying you can do good and help "needy people" and not love.

God knows that.. why would he set things up to be as such if he knew that? "I'll create them and set it up so they sin that they can know love. Sin will help them know love because it will let them help each other by the needs it will create. Even though love doesn't come out of helping, I'll do it anyway."

Bling, the way you present God makes no sense at all.

He creates man with a choice to sin. But man can't resist sin. God created man, but he couldn't control what man could resist, in fact it seems he made him so he can't resist. Why? Because that way he'll be forced to learn love "the hard way" and that will show him grace. Will all men know grace? No. Will most men know grace? No. Ok, a few men will know grace. So all the rest, to hell with. God loves the world, except those he foreknew to be a worthy sacrifice to go to hell for the elect's sake. How? Because someone had to sin to create a need that wouldn't always produce love but might but would give a need for grace that was only halfway taken by some people that would love truly.

The way it sounds, God really wanted the world to sin. Because few people walk the straight and narrow path. With so many people sinning, that's almost how you say
God intended it. In fact, it is the sinners that make it all possible. God wanted the sinners as a means to show them grace. But then to hell with them, because only the saved will be taken. Those he foresaw being saved.

You and I, we are safe. But those other sinners and non-christians, they are a part of Gods plan to bring sin into the world that WE might know love. After all those sinners can't know love without grace. Not Godly love. That good samaritan must have been a christian. Others like him who are not saved are just imitations of love. More over for out benefit. They sinned and died that you and I MIGHT live.

That is the perfect way of summing up the S.V. banner. The sinners went to hell that we might go to heaven. Through the sin we found love.

Bling, this is all despicable. Reject it! Love doesn't need sin to flourish!! Sin is in opposition to love, the bible says that in so many ways, why do you hold on to the necessity of sin for love???

Bling, you do not have to answer everything in this post. Just answer me this one thing: How would Adam and Eve achieved Godly love if they chose not to eat?

You claim they had a true choice. If this claim is true, your answer will not be "they were going to sin no matter what" unless you can explain how that is freewill too.

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

No Open Theism says that God's evolving. They say a change in mind is a change in Him.

Again, you are incorrect. I never said that, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. I am the open theist here, and I know what we think. I suggest you just withdraw that false accusation.

I don't know how many times I need to say that God has it all planned out. He only changes on things he thinks he should, and this is not a character change, that is something I have always said.

Again, I hate it when you misrepresent my thinking. I would ask you to read carefully and not draw conclusions when I plainly state what I believe.

If God knows some of the future why can't He know all the future?

You have missed the points I have stated. But instead I am accused by you of missing your "perfect" points. Lets explore.

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.​

I hope you can see that your reply didn't answer my question. You just told me the answer for the closed view. I didn't ask for it. Try again?

Rob

Rob, I totally answered you. You can't just pick one aspect of God and ignore others to make such a point.

God is loving. Right? Remember the last post? I guess the short answer didn't compute...... So a loving God would NOT, listen carefully, NOT destory man for sinning after he sinned WHEN he didn't know if he would sin. WHY? Because, Rob, love requires a free choice. Man won't love God if he knew he would be utterly obliterated.

But an all future knowing God would resist creating something so evil, knowing every aspect of his evilness.

And AGAIN, you ignore the dagger sticking in your thinking. Remember, God was sorry he made man? Remember? This implies a huge problem for you. How can God, just 1000 some odd years after creating man be sorry he created man, when just before that he was all "let's do this" calling it "good" and "very good" before?

This verse clearly backs me up. God wouldn't want to create this if he knew what it would turn out like. But he didn't know. So he did. And when he did, he loved it anyway, as he knew he would need to.

So, anyway. You have go to pay more attention to this O.V. thing. I mean it, you are really confused about what we are saying. And personally, you are not reading me very well.

You accused me of not answering the question, and you quote only half of my answer, so I look like I didn't. You ignored "But instead, God didn't know he would be grieved that he made man, so he would abide by his love instead. allowing man to be free, no worry of God cutting him off completely, " which immediately followed. The short answer. I thought you would understand the short answer for some reason.

And in the same breath I was accusing you of not understand the O.V. So why would I expect you to get a short answer? I just wasn't thinking I guess. Rob, you seriously have not got the O.V. position on a lot of things.

God can change, but not in character. In decisions, compassion, love, and understanding of certain things.

God can see some of the future, but only what he knows he will make happen or can guess will happen based on information in the present.

God did realize some would sin, and made a plan for those. He did not know it would turn out so bad, as he does not utterly know the entire future. Now his plan is in effect for all who sin, as it was before sin was around.

God is loving, so he will not force man to love him back with a threat of obliveration when man fails to love back. That as opposed to the same God, given 100% future knowledge, would decide against beginning man's existence as it being for the best.

This is just a taste of what you are getting wrong, put back right again. Please, do not misrepresent me, or my views again as I just plainly restated them to you.

 

[RobE]

Evolution=Change

Enyart: He must increase, for He is God!
Patrick: God can change, but not in character. In decisions, compassion, love, and understanding of certain things.

Again, you are incorrect. I never said that, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. I am the open theist here, and I know what we think. I suggest you just withdraw that false accusation.

Do you believe that God learns? Changes? Becomes better? Etc.... Answer your own question.

I don't know how many times I need to say that God has it all planned out. He only changes on things he thinks he should, and this is not a character change, that is something I have always said.

Then you and I think and believe alike.

Rob, I totally answered you. You can't just pick one aspect of God and ignore others to make such a point.

God is loving. Right? Remember the last post? I guess the short answer didn't compute...... So a loving God would NOT, listen carefully, NOT destory man for sinning after he sinned WHEN he didn't know if he would sin. WHY? Because, Rob, love requires a free choice. Man won't love God if he knew he would be utterly obliterated.

But an all future knowing God would resist creating something so evil, knowing every aspect of his evilness.

Why? When God is loving wouldn't He continue forward with His plan just as He does when He sees sin in progress?

And AGAIN, you ignore the dagger sticking in your thinking. Remember, God was sorry he made man? Remember? This implies a huge problem for you. How can God, just 1000 some odd years after creating man be sorry he created man, when just before that he was all "let's do this" calling it "good" and "very good" before?

How does this stick in my thinking? You must tell me how does repentance preclude foreknowledge. Have you ever done something that you planned and then was sorry for doing it?

This verse clearly backs me up. God wouldn't want to create this if he knew what it would turn out like. But he didn't know. So he did. And when he did, he loved it anyway, as he knew he would need to.

God knew that giving mankind free will would result in sin. Period. The world is not all darkness in reality. There's beauty, kindness, goodness, etc..... Did you know that one of the pillars of Gnosticism is pessimism?

God did realize some would sin, and made a plan for those. He did not know it would turn out so bad, as he does not utterly know the entire future. Now his plan is in effect for all who sin, as it was before sin was around.

Why do you believe that the earth is filled with sin and depravity? Can you please quit presupposing it is.

God is loving, so he will not force man to love him back with a threat of obliveration when man fails to love back. That as opposed to the same God, given 100% future knowledge, would decide against beginning man's existence as it being for the best.

But those who refuse to love Him back will be sent to eternal torment by His love, right?

This is just a taste of what you are getting wrong, put back right again. Please, do not misrepresent me, or my views again as I just plainly restated them to you.

Maybe we should reverse roles for a while using the PM. I'll defend the O.V. and you defend the S.V.. It might help us to overcome our preconceived ideas about each other. Or we could do it here.

Thanks and considerations,
Rob

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
No. All will sin. Why? Because we have the law, which sin takes advantage of through desires and finds ways of perverting the good things it says to do and the good things God put here for us.

Coveting, lust, selfishness are the precursors to all other sins and are sins themselves. What part do you see Satan playing in our sins?

Originally Posted by Patman
Adam was different. He had only one law, one he could have kept had he wanted to.

This is totally an assumption on your part. The Bible says he sinned, but does not say he could have kept from sinning had “he” (by his lonesome) wanted to. You say, “All will sin” does that mean it is not our fault for sinning? Why would it not be Adam’s fault for sinning if he was part of the all?

Originally Posted by Patman
I know we all sin, but we do not commit every sin. There are many sins we can resist. For example, I can resist murder. I can resist adultery. I do not have to give into the sins just because they are there. Many can say they did resist the sin to murder. And that prooves my point, there are some sins that people won't commit and can resist.

That is an extremely interesting take on sin. I could use your help presenting this concept, lets title the lesson “Sins I can Resist”, to 50 or so prisoners in a March lesson. I have used the video of James Dobson’s interview with Ted Bundy and left with the idea, there for the grace of God go you and I. Also the street Kids I work with don’t believe they are on the path of my prison friends and say, “they can stop” and “they can resist”. Those at my church are also involved with girls coming out of the sex industry, some are very cute and we have made it a policy of co counseling, but maybe, strong Christians should be able to resist the temptation to take advantage of this situation and we could double our efforts with one on one counseling. Do you think if we met Paul when he was the young man Saul (25 A.D.) that we would expect him to be caught up in major sins like murder, do you think he would have thought that of himself? Maybe, I’ve seen the power of Satan’s attacks on my own life and on the lives of others, that has shown me how weak I am on my own and how much power is needed to drive Satan away. I have known strong Christians that have quenched the Spirit and fallen into sin; doing things they would have never thought possible of ever doing. Some (but not all) have returned to being Spiritual giants in the Kingdom. I have come to the conclusion; I do not have the power on my own to resist any sin and must always involve the Spirit in what ever I am doing.
Patman, those that I have known from good homes, strong churches, and well educated that have murdered, raped, beaten and stolen, started out very similar to Ted Bundy, with just little stuff. It would have been easy for the right person to intercede, at the right time and turn this around before it went really bad. They also admit there were times they did want help, and could have gotten it, but they waited, thought they could handle it on their own and rationalized it away. Did they over estimate, have to much bride, underestimate, procrastinate, get caught up in the pleasures of sin for a while, or where they just not strong like some Christians think they are?

Originally Posted by Patman
Adam could resist eating of the tree, the one law. But he let sin win, not out of obligation, but out of his own desires.

I do not say Adam was obligated to sin, just he would sin, the same way we today, we are not obligated to sin, but will sin.

Originally Posted by Patman
I believe this applies to Adam and Eve, and those who followed. But especially them two. It speaks as to what they became, you can assume they started out as good, see as how God even created Lucifer as good.

Adam and Eve were perfect before they sinned, I would assume they were righteous as well. Only until the traded it for sin.

I think we are in agreement.

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling, according to YOU they are important. But according to the scripture I gave you, love doesn't come from circumstance, but rather from the heart. Remember, 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."

All of 1 Cor. 13 is talking about Godly type love being the only worth while motivation for doing anything, while doing good stuff for other motives (including other type loves) is worthless. It is not saying doing good stuff with the right motive is not worth whiled. I am trying to get across the idea that doing good stuff with the motive of Godly love will cause that Godly love to grow. Godly love is the driving force and with use it grows.

Originally Posted by Patman
You say that sin creates the right circumstances for love. I say no way. I say love can exist even without "needy people." You may not see it in that verse, but it is clearly saying you can do good and help "needy people" and not love.

You are right to say, “I can get Godly love without having needy people around”, but that is because I am in extreme need of forgiveness of my sins. Godly love originates with God and is a gift He wants to give everyone, but not everyone will accept the free Gift as a free gift. So the exchange never takes place for some. Accepting Godly love in the form of the greatest expression of that love, forgiveness through Christ, relieves us of a huge dept and “the more we are forgiven the more we will love”. Once we accept God’s Godly love we can then grow that love by doing what God does, which is helping humans. To help humans there then has to be needy people around.

Originally Posted by Patman
God knows that.. why would he set things up to be as such if he knew that? "I'll create them and set it up so they sin that they can know love. Sin will help them know love because it will let them help each other by the needs it will create. Even though love doesn't come out of helping, I'll do it anyway."

As I said before, “a lot of stuff results with just one sin”. As I just discussed in the previous comment the needy people are for those that have initially accepted Godly love so it can grow, be seen by others, be experienced by the helper and those being helped, and other stuff.

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling, the way you present God makes no sense at all.

He creates man with a choice to sin. But man can't resist sin. God created man, but he couldn't control what man could resist, in fact it seems he made him so he can't resist. Why? Because that way he'll be forced to learn love "the hard way" and that will show him grace. Will all men know grace? No. Will most men know grace? No. Ok, a few men will know grace. So all the rest, to hell with. God loves the world, except those he foreknew to be a worthy sacrifice to go to hell for the elect's sake. How? Because someone had to sin to create a need that wouldn't always produce love but might but would give a need for grace that was only halfway taken by some people that would love truly.

God created man with the ability to develop Godly type love, that love is not natural or instinctive it requires the continuing ability to make significant mistakes, errors of great value to be in contrast to the Godly love desired. God’s objective in all this is to do all He can to help man fulfill his objective of Godly love. All God can do includes: allowing Satan to roam the earth, requiring Jesus to go to the cross, allowing man to sin, Forgiveness, and allow a world and people with a lot of problems. “all things God works for the good of those who love him”.

Originally Posted by Patman
The way it sounds, God really wanted the world to sin. Because few people walk the straight and narrow path. With so many people sinning, that's almost how you say
God intended it. In fact, it is the sinners that make it all possible. God wanted the sinners as a means to show them grace. But then to hell with them, because only the saved will be taken. Those he foresaw being saved.

You would agree it does not take foreknowledge to know, “all will sin”. Now I include Adam and Eve in that all and you do not. I do not see the significance of excluding Adam and Eve or how it would have been possible for God. You have told me, all sin because they all have at least on their hearts the knowledge of good and evil and have also said if Adam and Eve had lasted without sin for a period of time, they to would have received the knowledge of good and evil. So if you think, they could keep from sinning with one law and people can’t keep from sinning because of many laws then Adam and Eve will also sin. Am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Patman
You and I, we are safe. But those other sinners and non-christians, they are a part of Gods plan to bring sin into the world that WE might know love. After all those sinners can't know love without grace. Not Godly love. That good samaritan must have been a christian. Others like him who are not saved are just imitations of love. More over for out benefit. They sinned and died that you and I MIGHT live.

That is the perfect way of summing up the S.V. banner. The sinners went to hell that we might go to heaven. Through the sin we found love.

This is not a S.V. or O.V. issue.
Young child are safe, we are saved. The idea is we (all mature adult humans) will all sin and all have sinned, because we can all develop Godly love. Needy people can come as a result of non sin activity or so called natural results, so unforgiven sinners are not “needed” per say for believers, but they will remain to be given the full option to repent and to allow us then opportunity to help them. The Good Samaritan could have been helping a Godly person struck by a meteorite no sinner needed, but the priest and the Levite sinners did present the contrast of lacking love. God would know without any need for foreknowledge that most people given the choice would chose to be selfish and not selfless. We can realize that.

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling, this is all despicable. Reject it! Love doesn't need sin to flourish!! Sin is in opposition to love, the bible says that in so many ways, why do you hold on to the necessity of sin for love???

“All will sin”
“He who is forgiven of much will love much”
“all things God works for the good of those who love him”.
“No greater love then…”
“Do as I have done”
All the examples and teaching, we have of Godly love in humans is in a sinful world. We do not know how it would work anywhere else or if it could work for us as humans any where else.

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling, you do not have to answer everything in this post. Just answer me this one thing: How would Adam and Eve achieved Godly love if they chose not to eat?

First, we do not know from scripture, because it did not happen. I am saying it could not happen, partly because it did not happen and partly because of my understanding of Godly love and all that is required or needed for Godly love. So, that does bring up the next question of, why then would God place them in a Garden knowing it would not work for their objective? God needs to communicate with an example to all humans, how He would love to be treating us if we could handle it. If we could have freely accepting God’s Godly love as just that, but in the Garden there was no real need to accept Godly type love. They could accept God’s love as something less, a love out of His responsibility, or because they are His creation, as His obligation or because it is not any loss to Him to do it or because they deserve it someway (they have not done anything wrong). The Garden needs to be seen as a way that does not work, because everyone from Adam and Eve on will ask the question, “Why would an all loving God allow this____ to happen?” People will think and do think; an all loving God should be providing them with a Garden type scenario, which is what He would like to do and has shown us; He did let us try it, but it could not produce Godly love. Adam and Eve still have the opportunity to depend on God’s mercy and live eternally with God in Heaven, so the Garden experience did not hurt them and should help them understand the kind of love they need to develop.

Originally Posted by Patman
You claim they had a true choice. If this claim is true, your answer will not be "they were going to sin no matter what" unless you can explain how that is freewill too.

The same way it is for you today, you said: “All will sin.” We make moral decisions (freewill decisions) to sin or not sin, but since the opportunity is always there and it takes just one wrong choice just one time and you are a sinner. Adam and Eve have the same issue.

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Bling,

I before I read your post, I had a new thought on my old ideas. I was driving in my car, pondering on the tree when I decided to reject an idea of mine.

I once said, and admitted it was only a theory, that Adam and Eve might be allowed to eat of the tree had they resisted long enough. I now reject that. Why? Because of the verse that said "the law is for the unrighteous." Why would God give innocent people a law when they were righteous? Apparently he wouldn't.

I have said many times that the tree gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, which is the law of the heart. That law is designed to guide us, and to be a witness against us when we break it. And that should remind us that we need God to function correctly.

So after careful thought, I no longer think the tree would be eventually given to Adam and Eve had they went without sin long enough. Instead, the breaking of the command not to eat of the tree would deem then unrighteous. At the same time, a law would be given to them to achieve it's many good purposes. And sin, would take advantage of that law and produce more sin in us. Thus, meaning the evidential sinning of all mature fleshly humans.

Yet I say Adam and Eve were different. You did not seem to understand why I hold on to this so much. It is because of cause and effect. Because Adam and Eve sinned, the effect was this world we have today. Exploring alternative causes would lead to different effects. Knowing God, his word, and his desires, we can conclude the world he intended, and compare that to the world we have.

IF I can show you what God wanted, and where it went wrong, maybe you will repent from your misconnects like I do mine when I realize I am wrong.

You have said many times that the bible does not show us what might have happened had things not went the way they did. And you are right that such things are unknowable to any great extent because they didn't happen. What I really want you to consider is what God truly wanted to happen, and compare that to what did happen.

God did not desire that Adam and Eve sin. He did not create them to sin. He did not require them to sin. He did not require they sin to know love. These are things we can know because of God's own words and attitude towards sin and his blatant separation of it from himself and love. Using this information, and the knowledge of what the law is and does and how it came, we can learn much about Adam.

Adam was God's personal creation. Adam was made in the very image of God. He was thus God's design, and a representation of his intentions for man kind. God created him perfect, without sin, and with the ability to love. That love was a true love, exercised freely.

What were God's desires for Adam? That he not sin for one. That he love, experience relationships between himself and others, and take care of earth. God realized that not giving him the opportunity to sin would be in opposition to his freedom to love God. So an opportunity must be given. God also realized if man sinned, he would need a way back to God if he desired. He would also need a recognition of other sins in order to keep him in check.

So God's solution was brilliant. Make the first sin be the same thing that gives him a law. The law was meant for good, to help an unrighteous man be righteous. But it also gave man ideas to sin, but not by design, by man's own perversion of what is good.

So man was created sinless. God did not know the future actions of man, but only knew that some day, someone might fall. So He had the plan of Grace. That when man sinned, if he wished to return as guided by his internal law, he would find his way back through Christ, and would be justified by Christ's death. A plan designed for sinners.

As Adam was created, he had no internal law. That internal law did not come to him until he ate. This is plainly said in the Bible, I am neither speculating, nor exaggerating when I say this. Adam was given only one law from his creation, and that was, "do not eat of the tree."

It was a law. A law that was resistible by any means. Adam could have easily held to this law forever had he wanted to.

There are many laws that many people live their whole life through, and never commit. Example, John the Baptist never drunk wine, so he avoided the sin of getting drunk. What if getting drunk was the first sin, instead of eating of a tree? And what if Adam was John instead? Would we the same outcome as we do today, or would things be very different?

I know That's now how it was, but the concept I want you to see is there. Adam could have resisted sinning forever had he only resisted the one sin of eating of a tree's fruit. It was his choice to obtain the knowledge of the tree, and his willingness to reject God through sin that made him do it. It was not a "have to" thing.

You present our creation as completely planned out. The sin is a part of the plan. Its purpose was to produce need and an opportunity to love and experience forgiveness. Thus, you conclude Adam HAD to sin. It serves a greater purpose. And because God knows the future, he knew exactly what would result.

This means Adam was not free. Adam HAD to sin. There is no alternative, God knew it would happen when Adam was made. Before then even. In eternity past, God knew Adam and Eve and Bling and Pat would sin. And then he created us to sin. And that sin was to show us love.

That means God caused sin. He knew perfectly his actions would produce sin, and he did it anyway. He is powerful enough to create anything, yet he could not create Adam with a knowledge and understanding of deep love without sin. Instead, he made circumstances such that man had to sin to understand love. And then God condemned man for sinning when he was destined to sin.

How is God good then? How is he just? How is he fair? How is he wise? How is he powerful? If he did what you said, how is he God?

You do not realize the shame you bring upon his name by saying what you say. Remember the reactions of the atheists? They recognized the message you spoke of made God look evil. And it made matters none the better. They will never come to terms with creation if they think it was created like you say.

Your message should be reconsidered.

Questions
Is God unable to give man an understanding of Godly love without sin?

-If no, why is God not powerful enough to do so? What scripture do you have?

-If yes, why do you not reconsider the necessity of sin for the sake of love? Because obviously sin is not necessary for us to understand love, nor exercise it.

Does not the Bible put the blame of sin solely on the sinner?

How is God exempt from being classified as unjust if he condemns sinners for sins that are necessary for developing Godly love, a purpose he created man for, by his own design, when he was powerful enough to create man with a different means of developing Godly love other than sin?

Honestly, I do not want you to answer them. I really want you to think about them. It should show you where your message goes wrong.

Thanks Bling,
Please Please Please, for your own love for God, reconsider your message.
patman

 

[patman]

Rob

You seem to forget that I once was an S.V. thinker. I know what I used to believe, I remember the problems I had with it, and I have grown past that now. I do not ever wish to revisit those days. I have no need of understanding the S.V. based on your input because I already do. Did.

It is much easier to criticize from the outside looking in. I found it easy to criticize from the inside, in the thick of it! Nothing the S.V. said was adding up. Nothing. It is all a garble of mystery and unanswered unanswerable undiscoverable unknowables. Nothing about the S.V. ever offered me the answers I needed through the hardest times of my life.

Considering what has happened in my life lately, I am not sure I could cope with the old way of thinking. Your faith has allowed you to believe in God no matter what. And I applaud you for your faith. But my faith has always double checked itself for desire of not being wrong. Even though I am free from sin by Grace, my faith checks everything it believes.

I am not able to return to the past. The S.V. Beliefs were nothing but endless roads of doubt for me. I found God to be unreliable, untruthful, and mean when ever I read. I found him to be non hearing when I prayed, and I thought it was because he didn't Love me like i was lead to believe.

I could not trust God.

But now that I understand that the future is Open, I understand why things are like they are. I no longer blame God. I can understand what he is at, and I trust him more than ever. Every nerve knows he is loving, and intends things for the best. My love for him has been restored and faith made strong.

I am very familiar with the S.V. Perhaps you are not familiar enough with it.

You have already said enough to prove me right about the S.V., except you do not see the foully.

You more than anyone I have read lately, try very hard to humanize God. For example, you asked me, "Have you ever done something that you planned and then was sorry for doing it?" You imply God is like me, a human, who planned to do something then was sorry for doing it later. Except you forget that God knew he would be sorry for it later when he was doing the doing.

That is simply a paradox in thinking, Rob.

Remember your Rock analogy? "Would an O.V. accuse me of making the rock fall if I Dropped it?"

God created everything, the gravity, the rock, the hand that holds it, and the mindsent of the holder. According to you, he made the holder want to drop it, so he did. And then he smacks the rock holder for dropping the rock he programed him to drop.

 

[RobE]

Rob

You seem to forget that I once was an S.V. thinker. I know what I used to believe, I remember the problems I had with it, and I have grown past that now. I do not ever wish to revisit those days. I have no need of understanding the S.V. based on your input because I already do. Did.

I'm not so sure of this. Do you understand the full impact of causality, Pelagianism, Socianism, Process Theology, the philosophy of identity and change, the logic behind libertarian free will, etc.... This isn't an easy subject and isn't understandable completely by any of us. The Open View leaves us with many unanswered questions.

I am not able to return to the past. The S.V. Beliefs were nothing but endless roads of doubt for me. I found God to be unreliable, untruthful, and mean when ever I read. I found him to be non hearing when I prayed, and I thought it was because he didn't Love me like i was lead to believe.

Then the nature of God and his Holiness weren't obvious to you. God is God.[/quote]

I could not trust God.

Why?

You more than anyone I have read lately, try very hard to humanize God. For example, you asked me, "Have you ever done something that you planned and then was sorry for doing it?" You imply God is like me, a human, who planned to do something then was sorry for doing it later. Except you forget that God knew he would be sorry for it later when he was doing the doing.

Just as I said on page 15 of this thread. Theory vs. Practice. To know of a thing is not the same as experiencing a thing. Does this humanize God? No, because God has to relate to us where we are. His knowledge does in no way affect His emotion. Living through Katrina is different than watching Katrina on the Weather Channel. This isn't a paradox in my thinking; although it would seem to create one in your own.

Remember your Rock analogy? "Would an O.V. accuse me of making the rock fall if I Dropped it?"

The following statement has no relevance to foreknowledge whatsoever. You should be able to see that the following is true whether foreknowledge exists or not. The O.V. suffers from the same logical problems as the S.V.; even though, it is constantly ignored. God, being the First Cause in creation, is the cause of everything. However, responsibility is different than causation because of free will. The O.V./S.V. holds this to be true.

God created everything, the gravity, the rock, the hand that holds it, and the mindsent of the holder.

According to you the following is true even though I vehemently deny it. Foreordination vs. Foreknowledge, again.

According to you, he made the holder want to drop it, so he did. And then he smacks the rock holder for dropping the rock he programed him to drop.

I say God gave the man the gun and the man pulled the trigger. You say what??????

I say God gave the man a way to repent of pulling the trigger. You say what?????

I say God gave sufficient Grace which would become saving grace if man would align man's free will to it. You say what??????

I say that all men needed Christ. You say what??????

I say Adam couldn't remain perfect on his own. You say what???????

I say that God is in control. You say what??????

I say God is perfect and not mistaken. You say what?????

I say God is the First Cause. You say what?????

I'm sorry if you insistence that foreordination is the outcome of foreknowledge causes you to believe God is not loving if He knows the future.

That being the case, I rejoice at the fact that your thinking is in error and it makes your relationship towards Him more acceptable. I've been through a few things as well, and if you'd like to P.M. and talk about any events I would gladly fellowship with you elsewhere. Our conversation is back at the beginning and I'm not sure that you are willing to let go of what you want to blindly hold on to.

If you're willing to honestly accept that God has reasons and ways beyond your understanding then we might eventually produce some fruit in our conversation. I've remained consistent and straightforward in our dialogue. I'll gladly continue, but I certainly don't want to jeopardize your relationship with our Lord by creating any doubt in you whatsoever. Let me know if we should continue.

Your Friend and Brother in Him,

Rob

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
I before I read your post, I had a new thought on my old ideas. I was driving in my car, pondering on the tree when I decided to reject an idea of mine.

I once said, and admitted it was only a theory, that Adam and Eve might be allowed to eat of the tree had they resisted long enough. I now reject that. Why? Because of the verse that said "the law is for the unrighteous." Why would God give innocent people a law when they were righteous? Apparently he wouldn't.

“1 Tim. 1: 8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.”
The law in context of 1 Tim.1 is the written Jewish law and not the law on the heart. So, are you saying God would not give the law to righteous people that would delight in that law day and night? Are you saying, Adam and Eve were not even given one law? The law may be needed for the unrighteous, but does that mean God would not also give it as a wonderful gift to the righteous?

Originally Posted by Patman
I have said many times that the tree gave the eater knowledge of good and evil, which is the law of the heart. That law is designed to guide us, and to be a witness against us when we break it. And that should remind us that we need God to function correctly.

So after careful thought, I no longer think the tree would be eventually given to Adam and Eve had they went without sin long enough. Instead, the breaking of the command not to eat of the tree would deem then unrighteous. At the same time, a law would be given to them to achieve it's many good purposes. And sin, would take advantage of that law and produce more sin in us. Thus, meaning the evidential sinning of all mature fleshly humans.

It is good, you see the obvious inconsistency in your idea. This is a small issue compared to some other ideas and those are what I have been really been discussing. In your above statement you talk about another law. What is this other law to achieve it’s good purpose? Then you say, “Thus, meaning the evidential sinning of all mature fleshly humans.” Will that include Adam and Eve?

Originally Posted by Patman
Yet I say Adam and Eve were different. You did not seem to understand why I hold on to this so much. It is because of cause and effect. Because Adam and Eve sinned, the effect was this world we have today. Exploring alternative causes would lead to different effects. Knowing God, his word, and his desires, we can conclude the world he intended, and compare that to the world we have.

Patman, I know you have a hard time seeing this, but the world we have now, is the world He intended for those that love Him, “all things God works for the good of those who love him”.
I can not imagine a better world for man to fulfill his objective.

Originally Posted by Patman
IF I can show you what God wanted, and where it went wrong, maybe you will repent from your misconnects like I do mine when I realize I am wrong.

I have and truly hope I will repent when needed.

Originally Posted by Patman
You have said many times that the bible does not show us what might have happened had things not went the way they did. And you are right that such things are unknowable to any great extent because they didn't happen. What I really want you to consider is what God truly wanted to happen, and compare that to what did happen.

I think God could easily foresee (without foreknowledge) what would and did happen and fully planned around man’s weakness to sin and difficulty developing Godly type love to come up with the absolute best plan ever.

Originally Posted by Patman
God did not desire that Adam and Eve sin. He did not create them to sin. He did not require them to sin. He did not require they sin to know love. These are things we can know because of God's own words and attitude towards sin and his blatant separation of it from himself and love. Using this information, and the knowledge of what the law is and does and how it came, we can learn much about Adam.

I have said many times now, God created us to develop Godly love. God did not require man to sin for love; it is MAN that requires forgiveness to accept the Godly type love God is offering and really wanting to give. Once man has that type love, he can then grow that love with use, but that will need ways to use that type love.

Originally Posted by Patman
Adam was God's personal creation. Adam was made in the very image of God. He was thus God's design, and a representation of his intentions for man kind. God created him perfect, without sin, and with the ability to love. That love was a true love, exercised freely.

There are many types of love that are instinctive or possess while you still have some selfish desires. Godly type love for God is a: thought out, intelligent, selfless, sacrificial, decision type love, that is not natural for man.

Originally Posted by Patman
What were God's desires for Adam? That he not sin for one. That he love, experience relationships between himself and others, and take care of earth. God realized that not giving him the opportunity to sin would be in opposition to his freedom to love God. So an opportunity must be given. God also realized if man sinned, he would need a way back to God if he desired. He would also need a recognition of other sins in order to keep him in check.

God is willing to pay any price necessary for man to accept and develop Godly type love, but He can not force it on man.

Originally Posted by Patman
So God's solution was brilliant. Make the first sin be the same thing that gives him a law. The law was meant for good, to help an unrighteous man be righteous. But it also gave man ideas to sin, but not by design, by man's own perversion of what is good.

By giving Adam and Eve just one way to sin, creates all the same problems as giving them a thousand ways to sin. As I explained before: we do not start out doing big bad stuff, we start out doing little stuff. If Adam and Eve started out with little stuff: being lazy, not tending the edges of the Garden, not putting the tools away, not really listing while God is talking, a little white lie, playing rough with some cute little animal, wanting stuff they should not have (maybe being able to fly), selfish, pride, coveting, lusting, etc. Since these are not sins (commands of God), they can continue to do them, but it will get worse. God could tell them to stop, but then that would be a command (new law). So when will it stop?
You could have commanded the young teenage Ted Bundy to not: kidnap, rape, beat, kill and eat people and he would have thought you were crazy. Ted wasn’t doing that and to him (as a teen) he would never do that. Ted at that time was into “light porn”. If bad behavior is not stopped for some reason it gets worse and people wind up doing that which they thought they would never do.

Originally Posted by Patman
So man was created sinless. God did not know the future actions of man, but only knew that some day, someone might fall. So He had the plan of Grace. That when man sinned, if he wished to return as guided by his internal law, he would find his way back through Christ, and would be justified by Christ's death. A plan designed for sinners.

The plan designed for sinners, as you say, looks so much better then this sinless plan. The sinless plan requires; that man depends on his own ability to keep from sinning to maintain an eternal relationship with God. While the sinner plan, requires the sinner to depend on God’s love for his eternal close relationship with God. Also the sinners plan enables man to really have a need to receive Godly type love (forgiveness) which the former sinner can then use and grow that love.

Originally Posted by Patman
As Adam was created, he had no internal law. That internal law did not come to him until he ate. This is plainly said in the Bible, I am neither speculating, nor exaggerating when I say this. Adam was given only one law from his creation, and that was, "do not eat of the tree."

The only issue with this is; Eve’s revelation of: “and you must not touch it,”?
Where did that come from and was there more???

Originally Posted by Patman
It was a law. A law that was resistible by any means. Adam could have easily held to this law forever had he wanted to.

Again that is speculation on your part. You said, “Adam was God's personal creation. Adam was made in the very image of God. He was thus God's design, and a representation of his intentions for man kind.” Adam sinned. Given the situation Adam and Eve were in, I would expect them to sin, because of what I know about: sin, Godly type love, other loves, Satan, people, temptation, God allowing people to sin, and time.

Originally Posted by Patman
There are many laws that many people live their whole life through, and never commit. Example, John the Baptist never drunk wine, so he avoided the sin of getting drunk. What if getting drunk was the first sin, instead of eating of a tree? And what if Adam was John instead? Would we the same outcome as we do today, or would things be very different?

So, if God said, “Adam or Eve would have to murder the other or one of their descendants to leave the Garden and at that point God would give them a fruit to eat on the way out,” then Adam and Eve would not have sinned. Then did God mess up and making it too easy for Adam and Eve to sin? Where Adam and Eve prone to this sin? Stay in the Garden or murder someone and get out is still a choice. Would God be pleased with Adam and Eve’s commitment to Him, if they could only murder someone to show a lack of love for Him? Do the choices have to be real likely alternatives, to be real possibilities, for the choice to be an expression of selflessness and the making of some real sacrifice? Would Adam not murdering Eve show a sacrificial, selfless love for God or could it be just his love for Eve?
The choice has to be an expression of Adam and Eve’s love for God, they are not making the selfish choice, they are forsaking something they desire, they are giving it real consideration, they respond out of love for God.

Originally Posted by Patman
I know That's now how it was, but the concept I want you to see is there. Adam could have resisted sinning forever had he only resisted the one sin of eating of a tree's fruit. It was his choice to obtain the knowledge of the tree, and his willingness to reject God through sin that made him do it. It was not a "have to" thing.

“Have to”? Try to go back to the first time you sinned: did you have to do that sin at that time? Could you have resisted sinning that one time? Most likely the answer is yes. But you will sin! We can resist most sins at particular times, just not all sins all the time. Adam and Eve resisted sinning a lot for some period of time, but they were not going to resist sinning for all time. We know, they sinned in a very short time frame, especially compared to eternity. Satan will go after the weakest person at just the right moment (Satan really understands man) and keep coming back until successful (Satan can be very patient).

Originally Posted by Patman
You present our creation as completely planned out. The sin is a part of the plan. Its purpose was to produce need and an opportunity to love and experience forgiveness. Thus, you conclude Adam HAD to sin. It serves a greater purpose. And because God knows the future, he knew exactly what would result.

I do not think God needs to know the future to know, Adam would sin. You say, “all adult mature people have to sin and had to sin (excluding only Adam and Eve)” and you do not believe in foreknowledge. God would easily realize that from the beginning, but that does not take foreknowledge.

Originally Posted by Patman

This means Adam was not free. Adam HAD to sin. There is no alternative, God knew it would happen when Adam was made. Before then even. In eternity past, God knew Adam and Eve and Bling and Pat would sin. And then he created us to sin. And that sin was to show us love.

Adam was as free as we are free. As I have said repeatedly, we have all been made to develop Godly type love for God.

Originally Posted by Patman

That means God caused sin. He knew perfectly his actions would produce sin, and he did it anyway. He is powerful enough to create anything, yet he could not create Adam with a knowledge and understanding of deep love without sin. Instead, he made circumstances such that man had to sin to understand love. And then God condemned man for sinning when he was destined to sin.

God does not cause you to sin or Adam to sin. The same things that caused you to sin, caused Adam and Eve to sin. We have been through this, all of us that become mature adults will sin, it is not Adam’s fault or God’s fault it is our fault for our sins. The same way it was Adam’s fault for his sin. God can not make our free will decisions for us or by definition they are not our free will decisions. Free will decision making is needed to obtain Godly type love. If you are free to decide to be selfless, you have to have the option to be selfish and given that option repeatedly, you will at some point go with selfish.

Originally Posted by Patman

How is God good then? How is he just? How is he fair? How is he wise? How is he powerful? If he did what you said, how is he God?

God is good, just, fair, wise, powerful, and He is the God that created you knowing when you became a mature adult you would sin. God has created billions in His image the same way.

Originally Posted by Patman
You do not realize the shame you bring upon his name by saying what you say. Remember the reactions of the atheists? They recognized the message you spoke of made God look evil. And it made matters none the better. They will never come to terms with creation if they think it was created like you say.
Your message should be reconsidered.

I have reconsidered many times a lot of my ideas. If you only address a few of my comments then I assume those you skip are not refutable, so I tend to take support from these comments. Repeating your conclusion and objecting to my conclusions are of little value. To learn we need to address the interpretation of scripture verses, with points showing logical issues and logical alternatives to particular supporting ideas and scripture.

Originally Posted by Patman
Questions
Is God unable to give man an understanding of Godly love without sin?

I am not saying it is only: an academic understanding of Godly love that is lacking, this might have been done for Adam and Eve. The full acceptance of that love as being that love by Adam and Eve may require a need on their part for them to accept that type love. I can not come up with a way for Adam and Eve to have a true obvious understandable need for that sacrificial, selfless, committed type love from God without them sinning, but that is not a real issue since, all have sinned and all will sin.

-

If no, why is God not powerful enough to do so? What scripture do you have?

Power is not the issue. The Love described in: “1 Cor. 13 4Love (K)is patient, love is kind and (L)is not jealous; love does not brag and is not (M)arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it (N)does not seek its own, is not provoked, (O)does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6(P)does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but (Q)rejoices with the truth; 7(R)bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8Love never fails;” is a decision type love that can not be forced on the decision maker.

-

If yes, why do you not reconsider the necessity of sin for the sake of love? Because obviously sin is not necessary for us to understand love, nor exercise it.

N/A

Does not the Bible put the blame of sin solely on the sinner?

YES

How is God exempt from being classified as unjust if he condemns sinners for sins that are necessary for developing Godly love, a purpose he created man for, by his own design, when he was powerful enough to create man with a different means of developing Godly love other than sin?

God is just with all humans and all mature adult humans have to sin. All humans will not be condemned for their sins “per say”, but will be condemned for not turning from their sins and relying on the Mercy of God. Sin is bad, evil, separates us from God, and so on, but all have sinned, so the need is not to keep from sinning, but to turn to God for the mercy He wants to give us and depend on that love and all that entails.

Honestly, I do not want you to answer them. I really want you to think about them. It should show you where your message goes wrong.

Patman, you do not have to restate your conclusion, but please feel free to attack my assumptions and interpretation of scriptures especially with logical alternatives. I want to learn where I am miss using and abusing scripture and where I am not being logical (other then what you see as my conclusions.)

 

[patman]

Rob

Rob

I'm not so sure of this. Do you understand the full impact of causality, Pelagianism, Socianism, Process Theology, the philosophy of identity and change, the logic behind libertarian free will, etc.... This isn't an easy subject and isn't understandable completely by any of us. The Open View leaves us with many unanswered questions.

I know enough and understand enough to know that we should resist these ideas. The lies of the S.V. held me back long enough, and I will no longer entertain them as possibilities, but rather wrenches in the engine that is the Body.

You must recognize that the Bible says things that do not line up with the S.V. thinking. The obvious numerous times that God said one thing would happen and another thing did. And then says he doesn't lie. And all that with an idea that God knows ALL of the future. How can you trust anything he said?

How about my personal prayer life? Asking time and time and time and time again for things in Christ's name with much faith in fasting and humbleness. My mustard seed faith never healed anyone like Christ said it would. Countless times I felt as if I were talking to a brick wall because of the misconception that God's word doesn't change. Again I felt lied to.

But a slim light of faith remained. Despite the obvious lies I had been brainwashed to believe, something told me that something was wrong with the ideas. I held on to maybe something else could be so about God. And the revelation came while I was listening to a Radio show by Bob Hill. He didn't even come out and say it. He just hinted at the idea.

And then the Bible came flooding through my mind. All the pieces just laid out, everything fit. God doesn't know the future, he is not forever stuck or bound by anything. God is God forever, and his decisions are his to make and change.

So much happened that night to my faith. Personal prayers I held against God, things that were wrong with the world I couldn't help but blame God for, the design of this awful world and the hopelessness I felt to change it, all melted away. I repented hard.

And I studied. I began to understand things that never were clear before. And the Bible was opened to me for the first time ever.

The number one thing I learned is the crime, the great sin, in putting word in the bible that are not there. The guilt I had committed when I did this, assuming I was right, is something I utterly repented of.

Now it is something I accuse you of, Rob. You MUST present to me proof from the Bible that says God knows all of the future. I demand it of you. Otherwise, you are assuming it is there. Rob, you should never preach words and claim they are of God when you assume them only.

Your proof must measure up. It cannot break the fallacies pointed out by the Settled Equation.

Example, God predicting an event and it happening is not proof of absolute foreknowledge. God predicting many events is not proof neither. And God being powerful is not proof of future knowledge. You must present a verse that simply says he knows all of the future.

If you cannot, by that one reason, you should stop preaching your message. Get help if you want. Get your wife or your friends to help. Use the internet, do whatever. I must have the verse, or you must repent as I did.

I recognize the sin of putting words in Gods mouth, but they are not his words. And that sin leads to many others, because now they lead you to say God does things that he does not.

Remember the miners in 12 West Virginia that died? At first the report was one was dead and 12 lived. A church was praying for God's help. The report came and the entire church preached and proclaimed God's hand was on them. "God's will was done." Then suddenly things changed. Instead of one dead, 12 were. Only one survived.

Did the church rejoice in God's will? Suddenly people were tragically crushed at this church's message. Smiles turned to tears because this freak accident that killed so many loved ones was instead presented as "God's hand and will" were for it to happen that way. Faith was rocked and shaken to the bone.

You should be careful what you proclaim on God when you don't have the proof to back it. Souls are listening and trusting you, and remember teachers will be judged the hardest.

 

[bling]

RobE, If you leave I understand. I do want you to know I have enjoyed reading your posts and will find you on other treads I am sure. May God continue to be with you.

 

[RobE]

I know enough and understand enough to know that we should resist these ideas. The lies of the S.V. held me back long enough, and I will no longer entertain them as possibilities, but rather wrenches in the engine that is the Body.

Pelagians believed if man did not sin Jesus was not needed.

And then the Bible came flooding through my mind. All the pieces just laid out, everything fit. God doesn't know the future, he is not forever stuck or bound by anything. God is God forever, and his decisions are his to make and change.

We all believe the underlined part above. You just can't fit the 'knowing the future' part into your thinking. Only Calvinism constrains God! I'm not a Calvinist. Foreordination vs. Foreknowledge.

_________________________

Now it is something I accuse you of, Rob. You MUST present to me proof from the Bible that says God knows all of the future. I demand it of you. Otherwise, you are assuming it is there. Rob, you should never preach words and claim they are of God when you assume them only.

Your proof must measure up. It cannot break the fallacies pointed out by the Settled Equation.

Example, God predicting an event and it happening is not proof of absolute foreknowledge. God predicting many events is not proof neither. And God being powerful is not proof of future knowledge. You must present a verse that simply says he knows all of the future..

Likewise, I demand of you a scripture which says God doesn't know the future. God predicting an event in itself contradicts your position.

If you wish to present this reasoning then:

You must present a verse that simply says he knows NONE of the future.​

If you cannot, by that one reason, you should stop preaching your message. Get help if you want. Get your wife or your friends to help. Use the internet, do whatever. I must have the verse, or you must repent as I did.

If you claim that He knows some of the future, but not all of it; then, you must explain why He has the ability in some instances and not in others.

Did the church rejoice in God's will? Suddenly people were tragically crushed at this church's message. Smiles turned to tears because this freak accident that killed so many loved ones was instead presented as "God's hand and will" were for it to happen that way. Faith was rocked and shaken to the bone.

An immature faith perhaps. Maybe we should read Job again.
__________________

Patrick,

The idea that God doesn't know everything isn't a new idea. It arises to offset a logical fallacy.

Free choices determines what God foreknows.
Atmospheric pressure causes the barometer go up.

Free choices determines outcomes.
Atmospheric pressure causes storms.

God's foreknowledge determines outcomes; just as, Barometers going up cause storms.(do you see the fallacy?)

The logical fallacy you suffer from is simply put foreknowledge=foreordination. The truth is that foreknowledge <> foreordination. Once you understand this then you'll know why foreknowledge isn't the horrible thing your emotion says it is. If it's easier for you to believe in God's love when He's limited in knowledge; then do so. I have no desire to make you question Our Lord in any way.

God's will was for man to have free choices so man could freely love Him and each other.

The world and creation remain good despite the evil that God foreknew men would do. It's this good that God seeks.

I am, whether you know it or not, your Friend,

Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

Reply to Bling

Reply to Bling

RobE, If you leave I understand. I do want you to know I have enjoyed reading your posts and will find you on other treads I am sure. May God continue to be with you.

Why don't you asked me for clarification of my position and point out where you think I'm wrong. It would help me figure out what the truth is.

Friends,
Rob

 

[patman]

Rob

Rob

Rob, I asked proof from you, and you have yet to provide it. Instead you ask me for a verse too. But remember I asked for proof.

The Bible is full of examples of God's partial future knowledge. And that we can freely say God has. But there is no example of absolute future knowledge. Instead we find examples of the lack of future knowledge.

-------------------------------------------------
Perhaps verses:
-------------------------------------------------

God's future knowledge seems limited by these verses because he thinks something might happen, or it might not happen... i.e, perhaps

Jeremiah 26:3
Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’

Mark 11:13
And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

perhaps |p?r?(h)aps| adverb used to express uncertainty or possibility : perhaps I should have been frank with him. • used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion : perhaps not surprisingly, he was cautious about committing himself. • used when making a polite request, offer, or suggestion : would you perhaps consent to act as our guide? • used to express reluctant or qualified agreement or acceptance : “She understood him better than his wife ever did.” “Perhaps so, but …(New Americal Oxford Dictionary)

-------------------------------------------------
IF verses:
-------------------------------------------------

God does not know the outcome of Solomon.

2 Samuel 7
12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you.[] Your throne shall be established forever.”’”

1 Kings 9
4 Now if you walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded you, and if you keep My statutes and My judgments, 5 then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’ 6 But if you or your sons at all turn from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, 7 then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight. Israel will be a proverb and a byword among all peoples. 8 And as for this house, which is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and will hiss, and say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?’ 9 Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore the LORD has brought all this calamity on them.’”

AND as it turns out, Solomon DID sin.

1 Kings 11
1 But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites— 2 from the nations of whom the LORD had said to the children of Israel, “You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David.

11 Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. 12 Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son.

The conditional promise to establish a kingdom to David's son were broken. Did God foreknow this would happen? Did God promise David something he already knew he wouldn't have to keep?

-------------------------------------------------
Expectations?
-------------------------------------------------

God expresses that he is not getting what he expects:

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.

Isaiah 5:4
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 said he would do something...........BUT................
-------------------------------------------------

Ex 34:11 “Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittiteand the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. ”


Josh 3:10 And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that the living God is among you, and that He will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizzites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites...

-------------------------------------------------
........... BUT God will NOT do what he said he will do
-------------------------------------------------

Josh 15:63 As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.

Josh 16:10 And they did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites to this day and have become forced laborers.

Jud 2:1-3 Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’”

Jud 2:19-22 And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers, by following other gods, to serve them and bow down to them. They did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way. 20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.”

Jud 3:1-6 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any of the wars in Canaan 2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it), 3 namely, five lords of the Philistines, all the Canaanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. 4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. 5Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons; and they served their gods.

-------------------------------------------------
God Changes his mind in the very same verse
-------------------------------------------------

Num 14:11-12 Then the LORD said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.” 19-20 “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” 20 Then the LORD said: “I have pardoned, according to your word;

A plea for Rob

Rob, rather than ignore these verses or wish them away, respect them for what they are. The truth of God. The request still stands. You must present evidence that God knows ALL of the future.

Rob:You must present a verse that simply says he knows NONE of the future.

I DO NOT present God as knowing none of the future. He does know some of it. He expresses his future knowledge many times. And I have explained HOW he does it many times in the past. So above I backed up my message with the word, showing how God's future knowledge is extensive but not complete.

Rob, I know you truly are well meaning and say what you do in friendship. But you should consider God's word is over our reasonings.

He shows us what he knows. If you claim he knows ALL of the future, you must back it up. And if you claim it, I want to see the evidence.

I must address your "fallacy" you accuse me of...Foreordination vs. Foreknowledge. Indeed, they are different. But they are the same thing IF the person who has foreknowledge is also the supreme creator. I shouldn't have to explain why, it should make perfect sense.

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Bling,

I am trying very hard to show you how your message is mistaken. I don't think you are missing it, just ignoring it.

You call sin necessary for man to understand love. It is more than necessary to understand love, it is necessary to achieve it. And God, according to you, created man with this "handy cap" that requires him to be a sinner before he can love because he needs sin to achieve love.

You do not see a problem with this?