If God wanted us perfect...

[Ken-1122]

God cannot change, nor Can God create something that does not change.
God made man "good", but man had to change.

The best creation possible is the one we now have, a creation that now and forever changes toward God, a creation being saved, redeemed.

Are you saying God is not capable of making something that does not change? So he is not omniscient?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

God made mankind, male and female and called mankind "good," not "perfect." There is a difference. "Good" (ontologically) means "judged fully satisfactory for its intended purpose." "Perfect" means "absolutely complete."

I understand that. The question is; why would he only make us good, but demand we behave perfect.

K

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

In any case it means that the person who had created it chose the place to store it carelessly. However, if assuming that the creator was perfect, omnipotent and omniscient (not to mention: is the the creator of not only the vessel but of the shelf, of gravity and literally everything) we would have to conclude that he wanted it to fall off the shelf and crack.

Anyway, I have yet to meet a potter who blames his vessel for falling off the shelf. Maybe you should get your analogies straight?

Yeah, that analogy fails because we are NOT inanimate objects. The discussions on freewill lately make me think I should simply make this point and be done with it. We can absolutely get off said "shelf" and fall to our own doom, at will. Fortunately we're fairly durable, and bounce.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

But the provisions are provided with the assumption that he is doing us some sort of a favor rather than him doing something that he is obligated to do because we are simply doing what he designed us to do.

How do you intend to "obligate" God?

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about becoming perfect, I'm saying we should have always been perfect. There should have never been a point in human history when we were not perfect, if that is what he expects of us.

Ken

No, I understand you completely! You are attempting to exalt yourself above God, just as satan did. You are doing this by attempting to instruct Him, and I am pointing out this is completely inappropriate, but this is a good time to get that out of your system and there is redemption for you, whereas there is none for satan.

God's plan is for us to start out good, become intimately familiar with evil so we no longer need to ask "why not," and to ultimately arrive at perfection / completeness. You are on that journey right along with the rest of us, like it or not. This goal is something we need to apply ourselves to and invest ourselves in, and at the same time we do not and can not know exactly what that is. Which again, is an uncomfortable position to be in.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you think that God would judge mankind as it is currently "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose."?

Y'know, that can be debated even by people of equally good conscience.

R.C. Sproul speaks of different wills of God.

One is God's "preceptive" will: The will that God states as a precept, such as "Thou shalt not kill." People break God's preceptive will all the time, and He's allowing it to be so. I would say that's not "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose."

But...Sproul also speaks of God's "sovereign" will, which include all things God causes to happen as well as those things God permits to happen. If God is considered as having an ultimate good planned for mankind, then it could be argued that mankind today is "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose."

A third concept Sproul speaks of, though, is God's "dispositional" will, that is, those things God has expressed as His "druthers" or His "desires" -- those things that are pleasing to God. I think I could argue that mankind today is not "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose" by God's dispositional will.

Here is a case:

God created Adam and Eve. He also created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then God imposed His preceptive will by issuing a commandment: Do not eat of the tree. It does not appear that the fruit of the tree was physically toxic--He had already said that every fruit was "good" for food.

Indeed, from what Paul states in Romans 9, it was the very decree of the command itself that created the inevitability of sin. If God had never said, "Do not...." there would have been no occasion for sin to occur.

But even prior to that, God created an Adversary to man. Okay, maybe He created a being who would become the Adversary...but God knew that all along and had every opportunity and capability to render the Adversary impotent. So just in case Adam and Eve were able to resist any internal urge to defy God...there was an external Adversary to give them a push.

Adam's sin was--by definition--against God's preceptive will. From all scriptural context, it was also against God's dispositional will--it has not been at God's pleasure. In either case, mankind at the moment is not "good."

But it must be within God's sovereign will, so in that context it might be argued that mankind is "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose."

 

[Ken-1122]

How do you intend to "obligate" God?

I am not capable of obligating anyone to do something they don't wanna do; what makes you think I wanna obligate God?

No, I understand you completely! You are attempting to exalt yourself above God,

That would only be possible if I were talking to God, I'm not; I'm talking to you and I am asking questions concerning your claims of God.

Ken

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Are you saying God is not capable of making something that does not change? So he is not omniscient?

Ken

This has no bearing on omniscience. And even rocks change.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

I am not capable of obligating anyone to do something they don't wanna do; what makes you think I wanna obligate God?

Your own words. Look back. It's exactly what you did.

That would only be possible if I were talking to God, I'm not; I'm talking to you and I am asking questions concerning your claims of God.

Ken

Talking to God or not is irrelevant. satan wasn't talking to God when he attempted to exalt himself, either. This is a heart condition. You are still claiming to have better ideas than God, which is a heart condition. In this case, it is that God should create at least one thing in this Universe, mankind, incapable of change which is the only way we could have been perfect to begin with.

The closest example to that is Lot's wife, who got turned into a pillar of salt. No, thanks.

Our ability to change is our ability to grow, and is integral to who we are and everything about our existence, including time. It's ok for you to have ideas and to share them, as it is for us to point out they really aren't better even if they may seem so to you. Fairly harmless, really.

 

[bricklayer]

Are you saying God is not capable of making something that does not change? So he is not omniscient?

Ken

Omniscience referes to God being all-knowing, God's inability to come to know.

God cannot create something that does not change; that would be tantamount to creating another God, which is nonsense.

Yes, there are things that can be said but cannot be done, even by God.
God cannot change, and God cannot create something that does not change, among other things.

 

[RDKirk]

I understand that. The question is; why would he only make us good, but demand we behave perfect.

K

Put those demands back into context. The perfection--that is, "completion" God expects man to strive for is completion through Him, not through ourselves. This also goes by the concept of "sanctification," which is not so much a matter of morality (acting "good") but of totally dedicating one's entire being to God's purposes.

I'm retired from the Air Force, but my company is a great supporter of the military. The company encourages its military veterans to wear their uniforms on Veteran's Day, and I wear mine. In early October each year, I examine my uniform. I check it carefully to make sure it's still fully functional and in good repair. I will order new parts if any are worn--I may even have to make the three-hour trip to the nearest base to buy some items that can't be ordered.

If you look at the tie closely, you can see that it's not just a plain, blue tie--it has a particular weave pattern that is unique to the Air Force. I make no substitutes for any official Air Force parts, even though none of the civilians at the company would know the difference, and it's unlikely any of the veterans would mention it. But I would know.

When I place my accouterments--ribbons, "brass," and such on the uniform, I do so with measured precision down the the very thread. Again, even though none of the civilians at the company would know the difference, and it's unlikely any of the veterans would mention it, I would know.

And I would never wear the uniform for anything other than an authorized purposes (yes, according to Air Force regulations, wearing it to work on Veterans' Day when requested by my company is an authorized purpose). Nor would I wear any parts of the uniform--not even the tie or the shirt, not even the undershirts--with any civilian attire.

In short, I treat my as uniform is "sanctified" to the Air Force and "holy" for its military purpose. That is what being "perfect" unto God means for a person.

 

[RDKirk]

God cannot cerate something that does not change; that would be tantamount to creating another God, which is nonsense.

Yes, there are things that can be said but cannot be done, even by God.

Well...God can't do that which is logical nonsense.

 

[ebia]

God cannot cerate something that does not change; that would be tantamount to creating another God,

Says who?

You seem to have defined God as "that which doesn't change", which is far from being an accepted definition.

 

[Juelrei]

If God wanted us to be perfect, why didn't he just make us that way? Your thoughts?

K

You think God didn't? Your question is using your standards of what would be a perfect person. So how can you bring an accusation against God?

You think perfect means automatically not capable of sin. But God's perfection standard is Jesus. One who is willingly obedient to God and so not desiring sin and therefore not capable of it.

 

[quatona]

Y'know, that can be debated even by people of equally good conscience.

R.C. Sproul speaks of different wills of God.

One is God's "preceptive" will: The will that God states as a precept, such as "Thou shalt not kill." People break God's preceptive will all the time, and He's allowing it to be so. I would say that's not "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose."

But...Sproul also speaks of God's "sovereign" will, which include all things God causes to happen as well as those things God permits to happen. If God is considered as having an ultimate good planned for mankind, then it could be argued that mankind today is "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose."

A third concept Sproul speaks of, though, is God's "dispositional" will, that is, those things God has expressed as His "druthers" or His "desires" -- those things that are pleasing to God. I think I could argue that mankind today is not "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose" by God's dispositional will.

Here is a case:

God created Adam and Eve. He also created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then God imposed His preceptive will by issuing a commandment: Do not eat of the tree. It does not appear that the fruit of the tree was physically toxic--He had already said that every fruit was "good" for food.

Indeed, from what Paul states in Romans 9, it was the very decree of the command itself that created the inevitability of sin. If God had never said, "Do not...." there would have been no occasion for sin to occur.

But even prior to that, God created an Adversary to man. Okay, maybe He created a being who would become the Adversary...but God knew that all along and had every opportunity and capability to render the Adversary impotent. So just in case Adam and Eve were able to resist any internal urge to defy God...there was an external Adversary to give them a push.

Adam's sin was--by definition--against God's preceptive will. From all scriptural context, it was also against God's dispositional will--it has not been at God's pleasure. In either case, mankind at the moment is not "good."

But it must be within God's sovereign will, so in that context it might be argued that mankind is "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose."

So, would I be correct in summarizing this like this:
It is within god´s "sovereign will" that mankind breaks god´s "preceptive will" and doesn´t conform with god´s "dispositional will"?

In any case, it appears as though your attempt to break the idea of "perfect" down to "fully satisfactory for its intended purpose" turned out to be an over-simplification - seeing that you later introduce three different concepts of "intended purpose".

What I personally can´t wrap my mind around is the idea that - as your explanation seems to suggest - god intentionally set up everything so that a drama could/would unfold, and then somehow is displeased with there being the very drama he initiated. All this smells like cognitive dissonance, to me.

 

[quatona]

You think God didn't? Your question is using your standards of what would be a perfect person. So how can you bring an accusation against God?

I would be completely fine with applying that which you consider god´s standards of perfection consistently, for purposes of this discussion.

You think perfect means automatically not capable of sin. But God's perfection standard is Jesus. One who is willingly obedient to God and so not desiring sin and therefore not capable of it.

So, when applying God´s perfection standard: Were A&E perfect? Are their descendents perfect?
According to mainstream Christian theology, the answer is no.
Thus, the problem is not (as you tried to point out) that humans aren´t (and never were) perfect by the poster´s standards (or mine or yours or whose-ever) but by the very standards you ascribe to god.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Says who?

You seem to have defined God as "that which doesn't change", which is far from being an accepted definition.

It makes sense though. One definition of time is change. If God is outside of time, He doesn't change. This agrees with Scripture. What else falls into that category? Anything "temporal," changes. And that includes the entire Universe.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

You think God didn't? Your question is using your standards of what would be a perfect person. So how can you bring an accusation against God?

You think perfect means automatically not capable of sin. But God's perfection standard is Jesus. One who is willingly obedient to God and so not desiring sin and therefore not capable of it.

Even using this definition Ken is right; God didn't create Adam and Eve perfect, according to the story. The Gospel upholds this too, contrasting the first man Adam to the last man Adam.

 

[quatona]

God cannot cerate something that does not change;

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

that would be tantamount to creating another God, which is nonsense.

Only if it being unchanging would be sufficient for qualifiying as a God this would imply some kind of problem - and even then it wouldn´t be "nonsense" but merely incompatible with one or several of your personal concepts.

God cannot create something that does not change, among other things.

Do you make such rules up as you walk along or do you have anything in store to support and substantiate these claims?

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

What I personally can´t wrap my mind around is the idea that - as your explanation seems to suggest - god intentionally set up everything so that a drama could/would unfold, and then somehow is displeased with there being the very drama he initiated. All this smells like cognitive dissonance, to me.

The anthropormorphisms like God "being displeased" are for our benefit only. God condescends to mankind. There is no other way He could ever get through to us, and really it's pretty amazing anyone ever hears from Him at all in this day and age.

 

[quatona]

It makes sense though.

No, it doesn´t - unless "unchanging" is supposed to be the only and sufficient attribute for something to be a God. (IOW while it is a common notion among theists that God is unchanging, the implication that everything that doesn´t change is automatically a God isn´t).