Theology Club: Did God place Adam in the garden for him to fail?

[Cross Reference]

Try the very first verse of the Bible.

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here we have all three components that make up the universe; time, space, and matter. "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth." (matter)

Without space and matter there would be no beginning; for time can only exist as long as matter exists. Therefore, time started at the beginning of creation. Notice also that it says in the beginning not a beginning.... In a way you could say that time is a relative byproduct of matter.

"Beginning" of what, you don't say. So "what" was created in the "beginning"?

 

[Ardima]

"Beginning" of what, you don't say. So "what" was created in the "beginning"?

You're not serious right?

 

[Cross Reference]

You're not serious right?

Serious as a heart attack. What was created in the beginning __ whenever you believe the beginning to be? In other words, when was the beginning?

 

[Ardima]

Serious as a heart attack. What was created in the beginning __ whenever you believe the beginning to be? In other words, when was the beginning?

First, I already explained it in the post you quoted from.

Second, you are coming across as just wanting to stir up trouble.

If it is a genuine question with no maleficent intentions, I will be glad to hold your hand and walk you through the answer that is a s simple as reading Genesis 1:1.

 

[Cross Reference]

First, I already explained it in the post you quoted from.

If you did, I didn't accept it as an answer.

Second, you are coming across as just wanting to stir up trouble.

What's new? You have approached me with attitude from the beginning. I gave you no reason and still don't. What's your problem?

If it is a genuine question with no maleficent intentions, I will be glad to hold your hand and walk you through the answer that is a s simple as reading Genesis 1:1.

I don't need your handholding but, please do, if it will help you understand.

 

[Ardima]

If you did, I didn't accept it as an answer.

That is your main problem isn't it? You will not accept anything anyone says if it is not what you believe.

What's new? You have approached me with attitude from the beginning. I gave you no reason and still don't. What's your problem?

I used to enjoy reading your posts and wondered why so many people spoke out about you. Now I realize that you are the common factor in all of the negative things said about you. The only attitude you perceive (aside from the last couple of posts) is you reading it into what I have been saying. I do, however, want to apologize for the attitude that I have had toward you in the last couple of posts. It was wrong of me.

I don't need your handholding but, please do, if it will help you understand.

Okay, everything aside. You seem like an intelligent person so answer me honestly. Do you really need me to explain when the beginning was; or are you trying to figure out where I stand in regards to YEC?

 

[Cross Reference]

That is your main problem isn't it? You will not accept anything anyone says if it is not what you believe.

Aren't you of the same mind? Give a reason I should change mine.

I used to enjoy reading your posts and wondered why so many people spoke out about you. Now I realize that you are the common factor in all of the negative things said about you. The only attitude you perceive (aside from the last couple of posts) is you reading it into what I have been saying. I do, however, want to apologize for the attitude that I have had toward you in the last couple of posts. It was wrong of me.

I gladly join you in that apology to make mutual with the hope we can work things things out to where we both might profit.

Okay, everything aside. You seem like an intelligent person so answer me honestly. Do you really need me to explain when the beginning was; or are you trying to figure out where I stand in regards to YEC?

The only reason I have pressed you is to make sure we are on the same page in our reasoning. With regards to the existence of the Word, "in the beginning" means wa-a-y before the Earth, as we know it, was created. We can't go back that far in our searching things out even when it says that all things were created by Him, we don't know when all took place. It also means we don't when the Earth was created, made void and re-created, so to speak, to be as we see it. Now, is all that agreeable with you?

 

[Ardima]

Aren't you of the same mind?

Only to the extent of the things I know 100% the Spirit of Truth has shown me to be true. All other doctrines I discuss with common sense and an open mind. I use the Character and Nature of the Eternal God as a baseline for all doctrine. I will admit that there have been some things that you have shown me in other threads that I have had to change my thinking about when I first got her on TOL. There are a few others that have done the same for me, but it is sad to say that most here on TOL are here for the sake of proving how intelligent they are by how stupidly they behave instead of wanting to mature in Christ and His Gospel.

Give a reason I should change mine.

You shouldn't, but you should let the Spirit of Truth change your mind when the time comes. As for our current discussion, there is room for separate opinions without being of a separate spirit.

I gladly join you in that apology to make mutual with the hope we can work things things out to where we both might profit.

Agreed. That is the Cross Reference I remember....

The only reason I have pressed you is to make sure we are on the same page in our reasoning.

In that case I appreciate the pressing.

With regards to the existence of the Word, "in the beginning" means wa-a-y before the Earth, as we know it, was created. We can't go back that far in our searching things out even when it says that all things were created by Him, we don't know when all took place. It also means we don't when the Earth was created, made void and re-created, so to speak, to be as we see it. Now, is all that agreeable with you?

I believe that it is not necessary to know, or claim to know, such things. There is no definitive answer to how much time had passed between verses 2 and 3 in the first chapter of Genesis. The only thing that I do know is that from verse 3 on there were 6/24 hr days of creating and 1/24 hr day of resting.

Neither do we know how much time had transpired from chapter 2 to chapter 3. it could have been a few days, or it could have been years. I will not and cannot claim to know when the beginning was and I do not place any stock in anything someone who claims they do know has to say.

The bottom line is the only thing I know for sure and will fight tooth-and-nail for when it comes to Creationism is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created..." Everything else after that is understood in context with common sense. (Which seems to be all too uncommon nowadays)

 

[Lighthouse]

Try the very first verse of the Bible.

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here we have all three components that make up the universe; time, space, and matter. "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth." (matter)

Without space and matter there would be no beginning; for time can only exist as long as matter exists. Therefore, time started at the beginning of creation. Notice also that it says in the beginning not a beginning.... In a way you could say that time is a relative byproduct of matter.

That is a huge assumption.

How do you argue time did not pass for God before He created? Was He static [immobile] prior to creation? If so how did He even start creating if there was no passage of time?

 

[Ardima]

That is a huge assumption.

How so? It is not an assumption at all. In order for God to be God (the Necessary Being) He must be eternal; that is, perfect (exhaustively complete), omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Time is contingent; and, for something contingent to exist, it must potentially and actually exist. We know that time is relative to space and matter because time is contingent upon space and matter. Have you ever studied the theory of Relativity and Special Relativity? It is a scientific fact that time is a byproduct of contingent existence (space and matter).

How do you argue time did not pass for God before He created?

How could time pass when time did not exist? As mentioned above, time is based on the contingent existence of space and matter. The Eternal One does not exist within time. The creation (contingent existence) is not greater than and cannot contain the Creator.

Was He static [immobile] prior to creation? If so how did He even start creating if there was no passage of time?

The correct term is immutable. Remember God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This means that God is at every point in time in every space in time knowing all things in time. Therefore, not only was God "static," as you put it, prior to creation; He still remains "static" and will ever be "static."

 

[Word based mystic]

That is your main problem isn't it? You will not accept anything anyone says if it is not what you believe.



I used to enjoy reading your posts and wondered why so many people spoke out about you. Now I realize that you are the common factor in all of the negative things said about you. The only attitude you perceive (aside from the last couple of posts) is you reading it into what I have been saying. I do, however, want to apologize for the attitude that I have had toward you in the last couple of posts. It was wrong of me.


Okay, everything aside. You seem like an intelligent person so answer me honestly. Do you really need me to explain when the beginning was; or are you trying to figure out where I stand in regards to YEC?

what is YEC?

 

[Cross Reference]

Only to the extent of the things I know 100% the Spirit of Truth has shown me to be true. All other doctrines I discuss with common sense and an open mind. I use the Character and Nature of the Eternal God as a baseline for all doctrine. I will admit that there have been some things that you have shown me in other threads that I have had to change my thinking about when I first got her on TOL. There are a few others that have done the same for me, but it is sad to say that most here on TOL are here for the sake of proving how intelligent they are by how stupidly they behave instead of wanting to mature in Christ and His Gospel.

I appreciate all you have written here but something stands out that presents a problem for me and should also for you. It is in bold yellow and should be handled with care.

The bottom line is the only thing I know for sure and will fight tooth-and-nail for when it comes to Creationism is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created..." Everything else after that is understood in context with common sense. (Which seems to be all too uncommon nowadays)

Where does the "Spirit of Truth" end and "common sense" take over except determined by the spiritual foundation one is building on that will dictate to him? Cannot the "Spirit of Truth" come through someone else? Is that not what the gifts of the Holy Spirit are purposed for.

I have learned that "common sense" has no place when fathoming out/discerning the scriptures and that the foundation be a very level one. . .

Try this verse out to your "thinking" to see what I am getting at:

"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:10 (KJV)

Give your understanding.

 

[Cross Reference]

That is a huge assumption.

How do you argue time did not pass for God before He created? Was He static [immobile] prior to creation? If so how did He even start creating if there was no passage of time?

In God's economy, everything is in the present tense, always in His here and now. If God says you are rich it makes no difference that, in reality, your are poor.

 

[Ardima]

I appreciate all you have written here but something stands out that presents a problem for me and should also for you. It is in bold yellow and should be handled with care.

Where does the "Spirit of Truth" end and "common sense" take over except determined by the spiritual foundation one is building on that will dictate to him? Cannot the "Spirit of Truth" come through someone else? Is that not what the gifts of the Holy Spirit are purposed for.

In my 30 years on this earth I have amassed much knowledge because I thought that knowledge was the only thing that mattered when it came to God, religion, and life in general. The greatest thing that ever happened to me was a difficult and dark time in my marriage. Through counseling I picked up a book called When Sinners say, "I do." It was within this time that I realized just how much knowledge I had about God without having developed any real way of applying that knowledge practically in my life. What I have learned most out of everything that has happened so far in my life is that the more I truly learn about God the less everything else becomes important in light of living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All doctrines that do not pertain directly to someone's salvation are simply not important enough to obsess over being 100% correct, especially when nothing can be known to be 100% correct aside from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have learned that "common sense" has no place when fathoming out/discerning the scriptures and that the foundation be a very level one. . .

"Common sense" is a great way to discern the meanings of many scriptures, and I find that many times the Spirit of Truth confirms that which I have discerned from scripture using common sense, and I will never back down once it has been shown. However I keep an open mind about all doctrine that the Spirit of Truth has not yet confirmed.

I am fully convinced about the deity of Christ, my view of the Trinity, and the scope of the redemptive work of the cross. Commons sense lines everything up with that which I am fully convinced.

I interpret scripture by asking two simple questions:

1) Does what I understand about what I read line up with all attributes of God? (Being Eternal, Immutability, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence)

2) Does what I understand about what I read line up with all other scripture on the subject?

In short, I use God as my ultimate authority, not scripture. Having a God focused interpretation of scriptures goes a long way because I can also use it for the purpose of discerning most doctrines without the need of a Bible on hand.

Try this verse out to your "thinking" to see what I am getting at:

"And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:10 (KJV)

Give your understanding.

This verse tells me many things. First, if Christ is in you then God sees your body as crucified with Christ and it is now the very Spirit of God that keeps you alive.

Second, it tells me that Christ is the Spirit that keeps you alive. It tells me that life is a working attribute specific to the Spirit and that: not only is the purpose of the Spirit to give life; it is also the purpose of the Spirit to purify.

This is all based on common sense built off of the Spirit given knowledge that I have of the Trinity.

 

[Cross Reference]

In my 30 years on this earth I have amassed much knowledge because I thought that knowledge was the only thing that mattered when it came to God, religion, and life in general. The greatest thing that ever happened to me was a difficult and dark time in my marriage. Through counseling I picked up a book called When Sinners say, "I do." It was within this time that I realized just how much knowledge I had about God without having developed any real way of applying that knowledge practically in my life. What I have learned most out of everything that has happened so far in my life is that the more I truly learn about God the less everything else becomes important in light of living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All doctrines that do not pertain directly to someone's salvation are simply not important enough to obsess over being 100% correct, especially when nothing can be known to be 100% correct aside from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Common sense" is a great way to discern the meanings of many scriptures, and I find that many times the Spirit of Truth confirms that which I have discerned from scripture using common sense, and I will never back down once it has been shown. However I keep an open mind about all doctrine that the Spirit of Truth has not yet confirmed.

I am fully convinced about the deity of Christ, my view of the Trinity, and the scope of the redemptive work of the cross. Commons sense lines everything up with that which I am fully convinced.

I interpret scripture by asking two simple questions:

1) Does what I understand about what I read line up with all attributes of God? (Being Eternal, Immutability, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence)

2) Does what I understand about what I read line up with all other scripture on the subject?

In short, I use God as my ultimate authority, not scripture. Having a God focused interpretation of scriptures goes a long way because I can also use it for the purpose of discerning most doctrines without the need of a Bible on hand.



This verse tells me many things. First, if Christ is in you then God sees your body as crucified with Christ and it is now the very Spirit of God that keeps you alive.

Second, it tells me that Christ is the Spirit that keeps you alive. It tells me that life is a working attribute specific to the Spirit and that: not only is the purpose of the Spirit to give life; it is also the purpose of the Spirit to purify.

This is all based on common sense built off of the Spirit given knowledge that I have of the Trinity.

I want to reply to this you say in the above, however, may I ask if "common sense" can fathom out what I wrote in the previous post #73?

 

[Ardima]

May I ask if "common sense" can fathom out what I wrote in the previous post #73?

Read my response to lighthouse about that very thing. (I believe it was in post #70) Common sense has to be built off of the knowledge given by the Spirit of truth.

 

[Cross Reference]

Read my response to lighthouse about that very thing. (I believe it was in post #70) Common sense has to be built off of the knowledge given by the Spirit of truth.

Is the Spirit of Truth any different than truth?

 

[Ardima]

Is the Spirit of Truth any different than truth?

It certainly is. Truth is what the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit) gives us; and that truth will never contradict the nature of God or His inspired scriptures.

 

[Cross Reference]

It certainly is. Truth is what the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit) gives us; and that truth will never contradict the nature of God or His inspired scriptures.

Again, wrong conclusion to wrong thinking. The Holy Spirit gives no such thing. If He did you wouldn't need Him after such a gift. That is not how a relationship with God functions. I'll let you think on that while also thinking about what it means to surrender your life to Him in the way He commands.

 

[Ardima]

Again, wrong conclusion to wrong thinking. The Holy Spirit gives no such thing. If He did you wouldn't need Him after such a gift.

Try reading the gospel according to John chapters 14 - 16 and get back to me. The Holy Spirit teaches the truth, and only the truth that the Father wishes us to know at certain points in our spiritual growth. The more mature we grow as Christians; the more truth is revealed to us by the Spirit of Truth.

That is not how a relationship with God functions.

That is a bit vague. What have I claimed about how any relationship with God works that you object to?

I'll let you think on that while also thinking about what it means to surrender your life to Him in the way He commands.

My life is a gift from God though the marvelous work of Jesus Christ. I cannot surrender that which is not mine. I may try to grasp at it at times so that it may seem as though I have control, but God has complete sovereignty and all things are going just as He has planned
according to His will.