Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?
- Thread starter JAL
- Start date
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
So then when leading evangelical scholar Millard J. Erickson speaks of a material soul and claims that 'We were all physically present in Adam, such that we all sinned in his act", you'd be equally dismissive of him? You'd insist that his position is bogus and without foundation?
Even though his book is a standard textbook in evangelical seminaries? (I just want to be sure you'd react to his words the same you've reacted to mine).
I'm sorry it took till the 20th century for evangelical seminaries to begin opening their minds to the inadequacy of their reading of Adam, but how is that my fault? I'm just asking you to do what they've finally begun to do - wake up and smell the coffee.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
That's a rhetorical question.
Maybe I can couch my response in these terms. If I myself were God as traditionally defined, I wouldn't find it necessary to create this kind of world. And therefore as an act of kindness - not only to the world but to spare my Son from suffering - I would have made a world without temptation.
You'll say, God wanted free will. But why would an infinitely self-sufficient God need us to exhibit free will? He doesn't need it,right? So, as an act of kindness to us, and to His own Son, couldn't He have abstained from this kind of world? Is God maximally kind or not?
I'm doing my best here to answer you but, to answer in full, I'd need to go to Controversial Theology.
Upvote
0
Alan35usa
Member
- Aug 24, 2019
- 13
- 2
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvary Chapel
- Marital Status
- Married
Your missing the point of all of it. You are straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. I do not know Erickson or "leading evangelical" whatever. Im just a simple guy with a bible. Would that we all be. By Gods grace. And i have not dismissed you. We have talked haven't we? Be easy.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You were not dissmissive? Here's what you said:
If that's not you being dismissive then, by all means, please spare me from seeing you be dismissive. Because I'm not sure I could weather anything more derogatory than that.
Upvote
0
Akita Suggagaki
Well-Known Member
- Jul 20, 2018
- 6,903
- 4,995
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Adam is a Jewish mythological figure who has nothing to do with our actual human predicament.
Upvote
0
Alan35usa
Member
- Aug 24, 2019
- 13
- 2
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvary Chapel
- Marital Status
- Married
That is not dismissive. That is quite attentive. That is me taking the time to addresss you and think on your thoughts. Its not dismissive, irs disagreeing. When i joined here i didn't understand what the. No "Goading" terms were all about. Now, i understand.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I'm too much of a literalist to take that kind of statement seriously.
Aside from that, what's your theodicy? If God is maximally kind, why do even unborn fetuses suffer?
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Ok let's use the term disapproving. You still didn't answer the question. Are you equally disapproving of Erickson's words? And I'd take it you'd consider those evanglical seminaries to be in the wrong for having accepted his book?
This will help me decide if your assesment of me is prejudicial. I suspect it was, and accordingly you'll likely just dodge this kind of objection.
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 9,656
- 7,872
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You are not controversial, just misguided and lacking the knowledge of the character of God. Nothing to be alarmed about, you just need to seek Him out with a more pure heart. When you do that, He will unveil Himself to you. For now you will just find Him distasteful until you relinquish and repent.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
My understanding of God is NOT distasteful. I found God unpalatable back when I first got saved, when all I knew was the traditional understanding of God.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
(1) Evil magnifies the love of God? A better question, what is the best way to glorify God? Evil? When Scripture says to go forth and bear fruit to the Father's glory, it means evil fruit? And the more evil, the more God is glorified?
(2) Is God so selfish and narcissistic that He'd prefer to impose a reign of unkindness for His own glorification at the expense of even innocent fetuses in the womb? This is your solution to the problem of evil? If anything, you're exacerbating the problem of evil, it seems to me.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
(1) Robots. You don't mean that literally, right? Is it morally wrong to have a computer/robot? I don't see why. You're not being clear.
(2) Love slaves? Morally wrong? Again, you need to be more clear. First of all, the term 'slave' connotes agonizing labor - suffering. Obviously, if I define God as one who minimizes suffering, agonizing labor isn't what I had in mind. In my view heaven won't be a place of temptation. Is that a bad thing? Does it make us love slaves in a pejorative sense? Not at all. It's simply that our desires will be holy. We'll still have some degree of free will (e.g. the ability to choose between apple pie or coconut cream) but, having pure desires, insufficient freedom to kill and torture one another.
Why I am confident that heaven will, for us, be free of temptation? Because temptation creates a painful inner turmoil known as the agony of temptation. It's a form of suffering. I'm confident that heaven won't be a place of eternal agony/suffering.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
With God anything goes, then? He can be as evil and unjust as He wants to be but, because He is God, we still have to call it 'kindness' ? I refuted that semantic contradiction at post 12.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I don't think god is maximally kind from a fallen human standpoint. From a holy standpoint I'm sure God is. The fact is like I said, we can't know. There is some room for our own ideas, as long as we understand the basic concept of being sinners in need of repentance and Christ's sacrifice for our sins on the cross.
Upvote
0
Chris35
Active Member
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
From my understanding thats why God sent Jesus. So that we didnt have to suffer eternally for the sins of Adam, or for our own sin, although we definately do deserve it, because we all sin.
Why would God allow temptation in the first place?
I dont think anyone really knows the answer to that question. We do know God loves us. We do know we only see a small part of the picture while God see's it all. We dont know the answer, however we put our trust and faith in God, that his plan, and understanding is greater then ours, and that it does come from love.
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
11As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” e 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
From my understanding thats why God sent Jesus. So that we didnt have to suffer eternally for the sins of Adam, or for our own sin, although we definately do deserve it, because we all sin.
Why would God allow temptation in the first place?
I dont think anyone really knows the answer to that question. We do know God loves us. We do know we only see a small part of the picture while God see's it all. We dont know the answer, however we put our trust and faith in God, that his plan, and understanding is greater then ours, and that it does come from love.
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
11As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” e 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,291
- 5,252
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?
No, is the correct answer...
Even if God made us as robots, "even if", He would still not be evil, even then, and if you cannot see that, I feel very sorry for you...
God Bless!
No, is the correct answer...
Even if God made us as robots, "even if", He would still not be evil, even then, and if you cannot see that, I feel very sorry for you...
God Bless!
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Unborn fetuses deserve what? They deserve to inherit Adam's horrible sinful nature? Tell me, what did they do to deserve THAT catastrophe?
Actually the answer is simple, obvious, and a logical necessity, although I'd have to explain why on the Controversial Theology forum, not here. What it boils down to is replacing the traditional understanding of God with one that makes a a lot more sense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
