• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Is temptation, in and of itself, sin?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by public hermit, Apr 7, 2021.

  1. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Pharaoh is used by Paul as an example of what God does with people for His purposes. Specifically Paul was speaking about the history of Israel and how only the remnant of Israel would ultimately be saved. The lessons apply to how God works within humanity as the Potter with all authority over the clay (people).
     
  2. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Clare is using the word "ignoble," which is fine, but may deserve some more explanation.

    The word at root means "honor" and includes the concept of being of "value."

    This concept of value tracks through Scripture in a sense that those who recognize God as being God and are thankful to Him have valuable minds (Romans 1). They are the vessels (pottery) of mercy being formed by God for glory (and this ties into Faith).

    When we see some of the concepts of testing (which is where this thread about temptation (testing) was taken, partially by me), the language in some of the testing verses speaks of testing for value, like assaying the purity of precious metals to ascertain their value.

    When we see Paul speaking of Christians individually and corporately being built up with gold, silver and precious stones, we're seeing this thread about value being carried through Scripture.

    Paul is saying that it is God and His being merciful and compassionate on those He chooses that are being formed into something valuable. On the flip side God is forming some for wrath and destruction and this will work to reveal how valuable it was to be formed by Him for glory.

    The natural question that arises from a person (like you and like me) is, "Is God unrighteous in doing this" (Rom9:14). And Paul's emphatic answer is "Absolutely not!"

    The question thus arises, how does God determine who He will form for glory and who for wrath and destruction? This was a part of my question in seeking precision of understanding, and this is why some of us ventured into human will interacting with God's will.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  3. Saint Steven

    Saint Steven You can call me Steve Supporter

    +8,519
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    @public hermit -- I was watching this video below and it occurred to me that it is very relevant to the OP.

    The author of the book titled: Born AGAIN this Way, Rachel Gilson, testifies that her same-sex attraction did not go away, despite becoming a Christian and entering a heterosexual/monogamous marriage (of 13 years).

    Here's the point: She relates this desire having come to her through the Fall. She was born with it. Though it didn't show up until she was in her teens.

    So, even though she has repented of the previous lifestyle, the desire (same-sex attraction) remains. Is that desire sin? What more could she have done to correct this?

    This leads me to conclude that these evil desires are potential causes of (opportunities for) sinful acts, but not sin, in and of themselves. Our requirement is to repent/continue to repent (turn away) whenever they rear their ugly heads, but are not sin in themselves.

    She says that church has failed in the attempts to "cure" same-sex attraction through making LGBTQ people straight. Though some may be powerfully delivered, it doesn't always happen. Let's face it. The same is true for alcoholism and drug addiction. We should support those attempting life-changes in any area of this sort. But there are no guarantees for the outcome. AND we may be setting people up for failure if we hold these expectations.

    Christians and the LGBTQ Conversation: A Powerful Story of Redemption.

    Rachel Gilson has a powerful story of finding faith at Yale. As a same-sex attracted atheist, she wanted nothing to do with God. But all that changed. I interview Rachel about her story and raise some of the toughest, pressing questions related to LGBTQ relationships.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. John Mullally

    John Mullally Well-Known Member

    640
    +258
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    I view Romans 9:18-21 as being rhetorical. In the end there will be those blaming God for their own behavior saying that God made them that way. In Acts 2, Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit and speaking in depth offers salvation to all who will "repent and be baptized". The 3000 who took up the offer that very day joined the other believers - they were not put on a probation.
     
  5. Clare73

    Clare73 Blood-bought

    +1,949
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    God specifically hardened Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21).
    Romans 9:10-23 is explained in post #330. What is not understandable?

    Actually, all unregenerate mankind has a hardened heart. All God has to do "to harden" a heart is to withhold his softening grace, which is the only way any unregenerate heart is softened.
    In Jesus Christ.
    I believe "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men." (Romans 5:18)

    I believe "the sinful mind (all the unregenerate) is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature (all the unregenerate) cannot please God." (Romans 8:7)

    I believe "the man without the Spirit (all the unregenerate) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14).

    I believe "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."(John 6:65)

    I believe "all whom the Father has given me will come to me." (John 6:37)

    I believe "I shall lose none of all whom the Father has given me." (John 6:39)

    The answer to your question is found in the word of God written, above.
    Strawman. . .none of the above are the words of Calvin.
    This is part of the discussion on free will, which pertains to the topic of the OP.

    And yes, we can get back to temptatiin as sin, or not.
    Actually, it matters not what or how I see it, only how I respond to it, and how God sees me--in the righteousness of Jesus Christ which he has imputed to me.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. Clare73

    Clare73 Blood-bought

    +1,949
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    "Is God unjust (in excluding Ishmael and Esau)? Not at all!" God has the sovereign right to dispense mercy as he pleases.
    As always, in God himself.

    But we have to start on earth. We begin with the fact that our wills do not operate in a vacuum.
    They are inclined by our disposition.

    Then we go to the will itself: the will is about power (here it's about moral power) to execute a choice.

    The debate regarding "free will" is in philosophical terms:
    free will (power to choose/execute all moral choices--including choice to be sinless), and
    free agency--limited power to choose/execute moral choices.

    In the Bible, we find free will is simply being able to act voluntarily, from the desire of the heart, without external constraint. It corresponds to philosophical "free agency."
    When dealing with free will in the philosophical sense (self-power to choose/execute the good), the Bible denies such (John 6:65), teaching that man is not free, but is a slave to sin (John 8:34). Therefore, until man is regenerated, his choosing is always sinful (Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 7:11; Romans 8:7), because his heart (nature), the source of his choice, is corrupt.

    So the Bible does not teach the ability of man to choose/execute all good (John 8:34), it teaches only the ability of man to choose/execute voluntarily (Exodus 25:2; Ezra 7:13), and it teaches that when man voluntarily chooses to do what pleases God, it is only because the power of God works it in him (Ezra 1:5; John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:10, Philippians 2:12-13; Hebrews 13:21).

    With this understanding of Biblical free will, I think we find the answer to your question in Scripture.
    (I discussed this briefly, at the bottom of post #315, p.16).

    In Exodus 12:36, Exodus 14:17; 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Kings 19:7; 1 Chronicles 5:26; Isaiah 13:17; Ezekiel 14:9, we see God operating within the dispositions of men, inclining their wills to God's will. Man then freely chooses according to his disposition, without external constraint (i.e., philosophical free agency--the philosophy of free will always being the terms of this debate).

    So God is sovereign, and man still chooses according to his preferences and desires (Biblical free will).
    Which sovereign authority of God's word likewise presents the sovereignty of God himself.

    I see us as two sides of the same coin, me with the big picture from the texts and you with the word studies, digging deep and opening the texts even more. I value your word studies because I can't work in the Greek myself. And everyone can't do everything anyway. So while you dig deep in the word studies, I'm able to work on the big picture of the texts. And I do so love those word studies.

    So thanks to you too, GDL, for what you bring to fill out and so enrich the word of God to me personally.

    P.S. Do I see a lurking issue in the justice of God's sovereignty and man being held responsible?

     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  7. Clare73

    Clare73 Blood-bought

    +1,949
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    In the light of Romans 9:18, it is not rhetorical, it is an issue of justness in regards to God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, with Pharaoh being the example and representing mankind.
     
  8. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I think what I'm seeing is mainly some wording differences we may have due to past input or realizations.

    By "disposition" you are speaking of our tendencies, correct? The wording of this from some of those I listened to earlier on, and thus have in my thinking is related to our individual areas of weaknesses and strengths based in our "sin nature." IOW, some have tendencies towards some things and others towards other things.

    Following.

    Agree and John 6 was and is still a favorite section of mine, as is John 8.

    Even in this slavery to sin we can find gentiles w/o the Law doing things of the Law - Romans 2 - so we get into issues of conscience and some understanding in humanity.

    Following.

    Again, serving sentences under subjection to sin and death. Agreed

    Agreed and glad to see Phil2:12-13.

    OK, I see your wrap-up and it makes sense with what I've studied and been taught. Maybe by now you've added to what you're including in "dispositions."

    I think some of the earlier posts in this thread were touching on where our thoughts come from. I understand the promptings of our flesh (which ties to this OP), the world, the adversary, spirits, and I've enjoyed the work done my some, including Michael Heiser elaborating on the angelic counsel. I'm not digging too deep into your references in this last section other than reading the verses. I've always enjoyed the scene of the counsel where the Lord asks for suggestions, a spirit answers with one, and the Lord agrees and sends him to influence the thinking of men.

    So, correct me if I'm wrong, but your answer here is that when God hardens a heart, He inclines (influences in some way) that person to continue making the choices that further harden the heart. These influences can be thoughts, circumstances, opportunities, etc., where God knows what the choices will be.

    Now, I've brought up John the Baptist a few times and asked if he could have chosen to be anyone other than who God said he would be. Acts 17:26 has Paul saying: 26 "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, (Acts 17:26 NKJ)

    There are numerous examples of God raising up people(s) to do what He wants when He wants it done.

    God inserted John into history to do a specific job for Him. God inserted Jesus into history to do a specific job for Him. Does God insert just the good?

    Thanks for your kind words at the end. Likewise. Those who value and work in His Word are a treasure as far as I'm concerned.
     
  9. Clare73

    Clare73 Blood-bought

    +1,949
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Yes, but they are directed by our nature, which is instinctively (for lack of a better word) sinful.

    The main characteristic of the general human disposition prior to regeneration, is to self rather than God, self over God, self ruled by self rather than by God, ignorance of the things of God because they seem foolish, desire for and pleasure in ungodliness, no taste for holiness, "doing it all my way," etc., etc., etc.

    The rebirth alters the disposition ("instincts" so to speak) from autonomy to obedience, from the things of the world to the things of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit.
    I don't think the NT presents it as a sentence, correct me if you see otherwise Biblically, but simply as the nature of things, like a rattlesnake is poisonous, not because he is under sentence, but because that's just what he is.
    It's just what mankind is since the fall--sinful in nature (by "instinct," so to speak). However, unlike "instinct," man has some say over it.

    EDIT: Let me be more Biblically precise here.

    Actually, sin and death are not a sentence. They are simply part of fallen nature due to Adam's sin. The sentence that is on mankind is condemnation to eternal death because of the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to us (Romans 5:12-14, Romans 5:18-19).

    I've proposed an iffy word--"instinct" just to give a basic idea of it.
    Yes, I like all that "stuff" about the heavenly court of God's counsel.
    Oh, I wasn't expecting you to do that kind of work.
    And for a specific purpose. . .his sovereignty at work again.
    It's more simple than that.
    But keep in mind that, first of all, the disposition of the unregenerate is already disposed against obedience to God.
    He doesn't have to get into each individual choice, he just lets the "instincts" of the disposition run, and the rest takes care of itself, the disposition makes the choices it prefers. If specific choices are required for God's purpose, he just works an "instinct" (alters the disposition) to that choice. The person always experiences it as what he prefers and what he chooses of his own accord.
    It's like when we are born again. The "instincts" of our disposition are changed, and we are then on the way to growth in the likeness of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit and our obedience, because it is what we prefer.
    Only if God had given him a disposition inclined to be someone else. He followed his own inclination given to him by God.
    Yes, as he did Pharaoh. But it's not limited to the big guys. He uses the little guys also. And it's not limited to judgment, it's also for provision.
    I don't see it so much as inserted, as it occurring in its place in time, in those in whom he planned it to occur at that time.
    Jesus, being divine, required a special providence common to nothing else.
    "Insert" doesn't seem to be the right word in this regard.
    Was Pharaoh for the good of mankind, or for the good of displaying the glory of his power to all mankind?
    Keep in mind, we are all born with sinful natures, hostile to God, natures not submitting to God's law because they cannot, unable to please God (Romans 8:7) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), condemned by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18).
    God doesn't have to do much "inserting" for evil to occur. He probably has to do some reining in, as he directs it for his own purposes, and in other cases, lets it run on its own steam as he also directs it for his purposes. . .based on what can be seen in the word of God regarding these things.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  10. John Mullally

    John Mullally Well-Known Member

    640
    +258
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    Yes, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. The gospel (per Acts 2) is an offer by God (speaking by the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit) offering salvation to men who, under their responsibility, choose to "repent and be baptized". There is no Catch22.
     
  11. Clare73

    Clare73 Blood-bought

    +1,949
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Let me be more Biblically precise here.

    Actually, sin and death are not a sentence. They are simply part of fallen nature due to Adam's sin. The sentence that is on mankind is condemnation to eternal death because of the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to us (Romans 5:12-14, 18-19).
     
  12. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Romans 8:1 "condemnation" is "katakrima" another one of those words with a preposition added to the front of it. It speaks of the penalty of the judgment. One of the better, older suggestions for translations I've heard was "penal servitude" speaking of serving out the sentence. BDAG Lexicon is picking this up a bit:

    Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)

    [BDAG] κατάκριμα
    • κατάκριμα, ατος, τό (In this and the cognates that follow the use of the term ‘condemnation’ does not denote merely a pronouncement of guilt [s. κρίνω 5], but the adjudication of punishment.) judicial pronouncement upon a guilty person, condemnation, punishment, penalty (s. three next entries; freq. of fines: Dionys. Hal. 6, 61 κατακριμάτων ἀφέσεις; POxy 298, 4 [I AD]; CPR I, 1, 15ff; 188, 14f; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 28, 12; Dssm., NB 92f [BS 264f]) οὐδὲν κ. τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ there is no death-sentence for those who are in Christ Jesus Ro 8:1. The context e*sp. 7:24) qualifies the nature of the judicial sentence. εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κ. (sc. ἐγένετο) (led) to condemnation or doom for all humanity 5:18. In wordplay w. κρίμα vs. 16.—FDanker in Gingrich Festschr. 105 (Ro).—DELG s.v. κρίνω. M-M. EDNT. TW.

    8:2 speaks of Christ having freed us from this. This isn't just being released from the judgment, but being released from the sentenced servitude. When we get to the concepts of being "under" law vs. grace, "under" is better elaborated as "under subjection to." This is why Romans 8 continues into the concepts of slavery and obedience and sin no longer having dominion over us. We've been set free from imprisonment so-to-speak.
     
  13. Psalm 27

    Psalm 27 Well-Known Member

    606
    +294
    United Kingdom
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    No, Jesus was tempted, yet He overcame. He understands our weaknesses, He was obedient unto death, even the death on the cross.

    Sin lies at the door, but you (and I) must master it. :)
     
  14. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Just flagging your entire post. There's some very good info therein. Again, I think we're mostly in agreement and I am finding much of our thinking to be the same. Some things I'm having to ponder a bit.

    Again, I do sense that this is due to some terminology differences as I mentioned before. For example, as you know, some of us were taught quite extensively under the phrase "sin nature," but I can tell you that years ago a fellow seminary student and I, years after seminary and being taught mostly by a same pastor/teacher, began loosening ourselves from the terminology due to where our personal studies were taking us.

    I do remain with some continuing pondering in regards to my John the Baptist example, etc. I have found over the years that such checks in my spirit are seeds that sooner or later turn into realized food.

    Thanks again Clare!
     
  15. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hopefully this was answered already. If not, let me know.
     
  16. Clare73

    Clare73 Blood-bought

    +1,949
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I'm beginning to understand your terminology, and I'm thinking maybe our differences are more than just terminology differences. I think the differences are conceptual.
    Okay, I think this is where the difference lies--in "sentenced servitude."

    First:
    Romans 5:18 and Romans 7:24 are not the same thing.

    5:18 - condemnation to eternal damnation is not really "servitude," it's more akin to excruciating pain

    7:24 - "body of death" is figurative for "body of sin" (6:6) from which he could not gain freedom, it hung on him like a dead corpse. I guess that could be regarded as servitude, carrying that "body of death" around everywhere he went.

    Second:
    "Sin" and "physical" death are not referred to as "condemnation."

    condemnation = eternal damnation, eternal death, second death
    In Ro 8:1, "condemnation" is to eternal death, not to physical death.
    In Ro 5:18, the "condemnation" is to eternal death, not physical death.

    fallen nature = sin, physical death

    In Ro 7:24, the body of death is figurative for the body of sin (6:6), his fallen nature

    Third:
    Actually, it refers to "under the Law's curse," and really is not better elaborated as "under subjection to" as "in servitude," but as "under subjection to" as "in the curse of death."

    Fourth:

    The slavery is to the sinful nature (8:9), to the curse of the law (8:15), to decay (8:21).
    The obligation is to put to death the misdeeds of the body (8:13).

    "Slavery" is to the law's curse of death, not to servitude.

    "Set free in Christ" is from the Law's curse of death, not from servitude.

    "Sin no longer having dominion over us" is putting to death the misdeeds of the body, so that we may live instead of die (8:13), freedom from death, not servitude.

    "Sentenced servitude" just does not seem to be the concept in Romans 8.
    The concept is "condemnation to eternal death."
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
  17. fhansen

    fhansen Oldbie

    +2,399
    Catholic
    Married
    Alright-good. So only one will involved, not two, no “secret will” of God. When God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, He did not want Adam to eat of the fruit. That was my position. God is not the author of sin. So I don't hang it on God.
    Now here we have a bit of a problem-because in your theology we end up with fallen man having absolutely no moral power to obey God, whereas in Christianity man's will is weakened, compromised; he's sick, asleep, lost, "dead", but not totally unable to respond to God's overtures, to grace. And this makes him accountable for not responding, and therefore for the sin that he’ll never conquer without God. Otherwise, we must hang all subsequent evil, at least, on God, since fallen man would have no say and God, alone, would determine man's will, and therefore his fate. He’d be hanging it on Himself in any case, as the author of sin after all.

    There's really no reason for the centuries of ugly drama/sin, unless, through it, God means to gradually inform and draw man’s will to right orientation. Man cannot find himself, God must call him, by grace. But while God must move and draw man towards Himself, man is never completely overwhelmed in will for the purpose of being saved. That's an essential truth of Christianity. It's simply absurd to think that God would’ve come up with this grand plan of creation just to save some folks at the end of the day who can’t help- have no choice-but to will rightly while damning the rest who have no choice but to will wrongly. There’s no fatherhood there, no patient, gentle parenting, teaching and drawing His children into maturity, a maturity consisting ultimately of choosing to love, with love being the very definition of justice or righteousness for man, and choice being an absolutely essential part of obtaining and expressing love. IOW, if the person cannot weigh the differences, and choose to love, then he doesn’t really love at all-and his justice is not yet realized. There’d just be this pitiful little puppet show instead, as if such a show should actually glorify God? But the primary glory of God is His love, and the glory that He crowns man with is love as man also struggles to embrace and participate in that love because, again, love is not love unless it’s a choice, both a gift and the choice to accept the gift. God’s glory is reflected in the good He does within and for His creation. God’s primary glory is His goodness, manifested by humble servitude towards man flowing from His unfathomably powerful love.
    Sin/moral evil was useful only to teach man of its ugliness, futility, harmfulness, and of our inability to overcome it apart from God.

    If God wills/creates evil does He have malice? Or is His purpose very different-to allow creation-us-to experiment with our rebellious and wayward ways in order that we might learn of their empty and harmful consequences, that we might turn from ungodliness to godliness, that we might turn from evil to good having directly learned of the distinction between the two the hard way-and of the supreme value of the latter.

    Or are you suggesting that God gave the law because He likes to spread evil?? Could He have a greater good in mind instead? We’re told that there’s no accountability for sin where the law is unknown and yet the law isn’t evil in itself; in fact, it’s holy, spiritual, and good according to Rom 7, being the revealed will of God for man. It cannot be bad to hear of it. But what good comes from hearing the law? Well, we’re also told by Scripture that the law is a teacher, disclosing sin, revealing sin and our inability to overcome it. So, the more sin that we know or experience in this world the more we can and should finally learn of its harmfulness and ugliness as a result. If sin only increases the more the law is heard, then we can’t escape the fact that man has the problem, not the law. And the only reason for having this knowledge is so that man might have a change of heart, by learning of his problem with sin, and his failure at overcoming it, of his state of unrighteousness apart from God, with this knowledge being necessary precisely because his will is involved. Because then he’d be receptive to the grace that God has at the ready for convicted sinners. The more broken and repentant we are the more forgiveness and help and love He pours out. Otherwise no lessons, no such education, is necessary; it would have no value. But as it is God‘s been patiently working on turning humankind back to Himself ever since Adam first turned away in Eden. That’s why the centuries-long process of revelation and covenants, choosing a certain people to, among other things, demonstrate man’s failure at achieving righteousness, and finally birthing His Son into our world through them so that we might finally accept and embrace grace, embrace Him, when we meet Him, where He can then work righteousness in us, putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. It takes a lot to steer stubborn man away from himself and towards God.

    From the beginning of the bible through the end man is commanded, appealed to, admonished, encouraged: to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God. But instead of, “If you will…”, as Jesus asks in Matt 16:24 and Rev 3:30, as examples, your theology seems to says, “You will…” Maybe He should’ve said, “Never mind, you don’t need to know about this stuff anyway because, strictly as a point of theology, you will follow Me, you will open the door.”

    But regardless of professed theology most Christians live pretty much according to my theology in real life. They strive, they seek to persevere, to be holy and refrain from sin and to remain in Christ; they’re vigilant, they know they must bear good fruit, that what they do counts, that it’s not over and done until they meet the Just Judge and He tells them so.

    So to sum up, God did nothing evil by giving the law but something good, by teaching us that we cannot be lawful, we cannot be who we were created to be, apart from Him. This is the #1 lesson man needs to learn, which Adam didn't yet comprehend in Eden. The bottom line with Adam is that he deemed it acceptable to disobey God, to deny His authority, regardless of the influences, which definitely included Eve. He hadn't yet learned something of the vast difference between Creator and creature.

    Sorry about the wordiness here-and the rambling. I think it's because you’re right, I felt quite woozy after your post and had to take a long break, so sick of heart was I over the state of confusion present in Christianity. I may still need smelling salts-still feeling a bit weak and could possibly relapse. Sooner the better just in case, no USPS pls.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
  18. Clare73

    Clare73 Blood-bought

    +1,949
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Great. . .I didn't think that sounded like you.

    "Secret will" is better illustrated in God's dealing with Pharaoh.
    Let's not set Christianity against the Scriptures.
    That's really not where the conundrum lies.
    Adam, having himself ruined his progeny, God is under no obligation to fix it. No one has a just claim against God on this.
    In justice--owing man nothing in this regard, whatever God does, apart from making it worse, and what is worse than the condemnation man is already under because of Adam (Romans 5:18), God justly does whatever he pleases, and we know what he pleases by what he actually does.
    Romans 9:22-23 suggests otherwise.
    Romans 9:10-23 is pretty clear.
    I understand.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
  19. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I loosely threw out "sentenced servitude" after talking about "penal servitude" for katakrima. They were meant to be synonymous. The point being that we were existing in a condition that's beyond the judicial phase and is in a punishment phase from which we can be freed by Christ.

    5:16, 18, and 8:1 are talking about existence in the punishment now based upon the trespass of Adam, that will be carried out in finality at the last judgment/second death on those who do not come to Christ for justification, etc.

    5:18 is tied to to 8:1. We can add 5:16 and then we have the 3 times Paul uses this word katakrima. 5:16 shows that judgment/krima resulted in an existence in penal servitude/katakrima (krima > katakrima). 5:18 shows that one trespass resulted in katakrima for all people. Combined: one trespass > judgment > penal servitude for all people.

    7:24 is despair of what it's like to exist in this katakrima. 7:25 is like an epiphany in thanks to Christ Jesus for the solution and then the conclusion about the condition, leading into the freedom in Christ from the katakrima and existence under subjection to sin and death.

    This is essentially part of the penal servitude that's being discussed. We could not free ourselves from this body of death that was overriding our will to obey God.
     
  20. GDL

    GDL Well-Known Member

    +452
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    On the one hand, and at one level, Agreed.

    But, what is going on with the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God and Creator who:

    1. Created the universe with the potential for sin
    2. Created the man and woman with the potential for sin
    3. Tested the man and woman
    4. Allowed His known adversary to interact with and influence the woman

    Did He not know what would take place? It sounds over-simplistic at this point to just leave it at Him not wanting Adam... And discussing this as 2 wills seems pointless and not a real point. Are all of His subsequent works and His plan of salvation reactive?

    There's a much bigger picture here. When God put's man in place, was not a large part of the angelic realm already in rebellion? Isn't God resolving this situation with His creation of mankind?

    When God creates man He's already dealing with rejection and rebellion in His creation. Surely He wants and will ultimately have willingly obedient love in all His creatures who remain. Agreed, He wanted Adam to love/obey Him, but did He not know before creation what Adam would do, and what it would take to have what He ultimately wills?

    It seems to me we're underestimating what it takes to end up with a creature who will choose love and obedience over rebellion, and thus we're underestimating what God is doing within His perfect and holy character to accomplish it.
     
Loading...