The Fall

[Van]

van you are totally in the dark as to the things of God but I will teach you if you desire to be taught sir..

Disparagement of others demonstrates your position is untendable.

You mix "the sheep" in one illustration with "the sheep" of another illustration as if they referred to the same thing. But this practice is unsound. We all like sheep as gone astray, so the sheep refers to everyone in this passage, but in the sheep and goats illustrate, the sheep do not refer to everybody. QED, to assert "the sheep" means the same thing in every illustration without contextual support is unsound.
According to the false doctrine of Calvinism, God would not need to harden folks, for they would already be totally hardened with no spiritual ability. So by your own argument, your doctrine is false.

And finally folks, Beloved57 seems unwilling to refer to the parable of the Measures.

 

[nobdysfool]

Well, the word is actually "untenable". Go look it up.

But, this statement should be taken to heart by the one saying it. The constant disparagement of Calvinism by this poster indicates the fact that his own position is untenable. So while he thinks to defend himself against criticism of his own position, his choice of defense condemns his own disparagement of Calvinism and Calvinists.

With the same measure you judge, you will be judged.

 

[Rick Otto]

If mankind can Fall & still be Free,... (not to be petty, but)it must be a case of "Free Fallin'":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i18nSZBgOfs

 

[JAL]

Adams heart was sinful..thats why it brought forth sins fruit

matt 7:

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Your view is unacceptable because it would ultimately place the blame on God for allowing Adam to uncomplicitly possess a sinful heart. What we need is a real solution to the problem here.

The new birth imparts holiness. If the entire heart were reborn, though, there would be no sinful nature. The reality is that only part of the heart is holy, the remainder is the sinful nature. Sanctification thus consists of incremental outpourings, each one targeting another area of the heart. I have discussed this elsewhere.

But this too is insufficient, because God implies free will by calling us to voluntarily cultivate this sanctifying process (i.e. we must choose to pray for these outpourings – Lk 11:13). Therefore I believe that God actually does a second work (not clearly articulated in Scripture but logically necessary to complete this picture). He cleanses part of the heart from sin (each time we confess – see 1John 1:9) without making it holy – it is neither holy nor evil but neutral and thus has free will.

Adam’s situation was similar. He had free will because all of him, or at least part of him, was morally neutral. When he sinned, though, he became tainted, and we with him (see the opening post on this thread for more info).

 

[beloved57]

jal

The new birth imparts holiness

Which adam did not have until after the fall..adam was an elect in need of christ even in his pristine condition..

 

[beloved57]

van says

We all like sheep as gone astray, so the sheep refers to everyone in this passage

It applied to the covenant people of God at that time Israel..

 

[beloved57]

van says

According to the false doctrine of Calvinism, God would not need to harden folks, for they would already be totally hardened with no spiritual ability

Duh thats why they are hardened with no spiritual ability because GOD did it..

 

[JAL]

jal

[/size][/font][/b]

Which adam did not have until after the fall..adam was an elect in need of christ even in his pristine condition..

My apologies if I misunderstood you.

Adam had a pristine condition? So you agree with me he was morally neutral?

Because if he was fully holy, I don't see how he could have sinned.

 

[beloved57]

jal says

Because if he was fully holy, I don't see how he could have sinned.

That was the whole point of me posting matt 7:

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

 

[beloved57]

jal ask

Adam had a pristine condition? So you agree with me he was morally neutral?

Well yeah sorta. I believe being in the pristine conditioned that sin in the flesh was in its minutest capacity hidden so to speak , but in time it would find itself out..

look at this verse here ..ezk 28

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

notice it was found in thee though it had been unseen and latent it was there, he does not say iniquity got into thee..it was already there..Like 1 small needle in a hay stack..

so it was with adam in his prisitne glory..

 

[JAL]

jal ask



Well yeah sorta. I believe being in the pristine conditioned that sin in the flesh was in its minutest capacity hidden so to speak , but in time it would find itself out..

look at this verse here ..ezk 28

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

notice it was found in thee though it had been unseen and latent it was there, he does not say iniquity got into thee..it was already there..Like 1 small needle in a hay stack..

so it was with adam in his prisitne glory..

You're trying to have it both ways. You're calling him pristine and sinful at the same time. Doesn't work.

My original post was on target. Your view has God creating him with a sinful element and then blaming him when that element eventually manifests. Unacceptable theodicy.

A just God does not author evil. Your view of God makes Him the author of evil and hence unjust.

The passage about sin being found in someone doesn't prove your point. All it shows is that upon initial examination no sin was found. After the sin, then yes, sin was found. This does not prove God authored sin.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Authored sin" is wrong terminology.

It is your "theodicy" that is lacking.
Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Minimize & marginalize "evil" all you want, it doesn't change the fact.Here Peter illustrates how predestination doesn't eliminate motivation as the decisive factor in determining guilt & innocence:
Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

 

[JAL]

"Authored sin" is wrong terminology.

It is your "theodicy" that is lacking.
Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Minimize & marginalize "evil" all you want, it doesn't change the fact.Here Peter illustrates how predestination doesn't eliminate motivation as the decisive factor in determining guilt & innocence:
Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Wrong terminology? Whatever. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

No. God doesn't create evil, and the actual Hebrew doesn't decisively support the faulty translation you cited.

If the Father creates evil, He's a jerk to then send His Son to die to pay for His own evil.

Come up with a theology that makes a tad bit of sense please.

 

[Rick Otto]

God planned the crucifixtion by His determinate council for good. Men performed the crucifixtion for evil.
God predestined the evil of Joseph's brother's homicidal intents for good.
Come up with an attitude that listens to sense.

 

[JAL]

God planned the crucifixtion by His determinate council for good. Men performed the crucifixtion for evil.
God predestined the evil of Joseph's brother's homicidal intents for good.
Come up with an attitude that listens to sense.

But no one's challenging God's ordination to crucify the Son.

What I am challenging is the notion that a holy God creates evil and then blames His creation for it. I am sorry for my harshness and lack of patience, but the reason for my loss of patience is that I know you, and beloved57, to be much too intelligent to be unware of the problem in this kind of thinking.

Which is why it is probably silly for me to debate with you. I think your statment is the result of a firm commitment to a theological system, a commitment so strong that you will fight tooth and nail to preserve it despite any logical problems you might face.

 

[beloved57]

jal says:

No. God doesn't create evil, and the actual Hebrew doesn't decisively support the faulty translation you cited.

The hebrew word does support Gods creating of all evil all that the word entails the word is rah:

1) bad, evil
a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
c) evil, displeasing
d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
e) bad (of value)
f) worse than, worst (comparison)
g) sad, unhappy
h) evil (hurtful)
i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
2) deeds, actions
n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
a) evil, distress, adversity
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
a) evil, misery, distress
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)

Out of 661 usages 442 times it refers to moral evil, so the word does convey the support for God creating moral evil for His purpose..

 

[JAL]

jal says:



The hebrew word does support Gods creating of all evil all that the word entails the word is rah:

1) bad, evil
a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
c) evil, displeasing
d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
e) bad (of value)
f) worse than, worst (comparison)
g) sad, unhappy
h) evil (hurtful)
i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
2) deeds, actions
n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
a) evil, distress, adversity
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
a) evil, misery, distress
b) evil, injury, wrong
c) evil (ethical)

Out of 661 usages 442 times it refers to moral evil, so the word does convey the support for God creating moral evil for His purpose..

I didn't say the Hebrew didn't support it. I said it wasn't decisive. Their is an overriding concern here, moreover, that we cannot contradict God's holiness.


Actually my memory had served me poorly, I'll admit. I had looked at this verse some years ago, and I was thinking it was the Hebrew that called your reading into question.


But now that I look at it again - I recall it wasn' t so much the Hebrew as the context. The verse sets up two contrasts:

(1) Light versus darkness
(2) Peace versus - what? Evil?

The problem is that evil is not the opposite of peace. Thus the Hebrew is not decisive here due to this contextual problem.

The Hebrew word has other meanings besides evil. Thus, based on the context, we can revert to one of these.


And we have no choice, as I said, because we must not contradict God's holiness.

 

[beloved57]

I didn't say the Hebrew didn't support it. I said it wasn't decisive. Their is an overriding concern here, moreover, that we cannot contradict God's holiness.


Actually my memory had served me poorly, I'll admit. I had looked at this verse some years ago, and I was thinking it was the Hebrew that called your reading into question.


But now that I look at it again - I recall it wasn' t so much the Hebrew as the context. The verse sets up two contrasts:

(1) Light versus darkness
(2) Peace versus - what? Evil?

The problem is that evil is not the opposite of peace. Thus the Hebrew is not decisive here due to this contextual problem.

The Hebrew word has other meanings besides evil. Thus, based on the context, we can revert to one of these.


And we have no choice, as I said, because we must not contradict God's holiness.

Sorry you cant rationalize it away God creates evil rah and to deny it is to deny the plain teaching of scripture..

 

[Ormly]

I didn't say the Hebrew didn't support it. I said it wasn't decisive. Their is an overriding concern here, moreover, that we cannot contradict God's holiness.


Actually my memory had served me poorly, I'll admit. I had looked at this verse some years ago, and I was thinking it was the Hebrew that called your reading into question.


But now that I look at it again - I recall it wasn' t so much the Hebrew as the context. The verse sets up two contrasts:

(1) Light versus darkness
(2) Peace versus - what? Evil?

The problem is that evil is not the opposite of peace. Thus the Hebrew is not decisive here due to this contextual problem.

The Hebrew word has other meanings besides evil. Thus, based on the context, we can revert to one of these.


And we have no choice, as I said, because we must not contradict God's holiness.

Excellent point JAL, that most will argue against when speaking of God's sovreignty; His Holiness being an absolute against all manner of evil. Therefore, when reading that passage there is something more that must be considered. It would be like saying God created disobedience or, sin. Folks who are not of the freewill mindset have great difficult reconciling such scripture; relegating what they can't know to, "Its a mystery".

 

[beloved57]

Excellent point JAL, that most will argue against when speaking of God's sovreignty; His Holiness being an absolute against all manner of evil. Therefore, when reading that passage there is something more that must be considered. It would be like saying God created disobedience or, sin. Folks who are not of the freewill mindset have great difficult reconciling such scripture; relegating what they can't know to, "Its a mystery".

It aint no mystery just flat out denial of what has been revealed. God can create any wicked thing He wants and it would not affect His Holiness one bit..furthermore you dont know the True God of the bible nor His Holiness, you serve a idol god..ormly one that aint wort the pot i spit in..