Scripture reference please?
There is no scripture saying man’s “nature” changed with Adam and Eve sinning. Adam and Eve sinned with the nature they had and with only one way to sin, so why would man’s nature have to change with the same “nature” and a ton of ways to sin (knowledge of good and evil)?
It would be unfair on God’s part to give a better nature to Adam and Eve then the nature I have.
We are told about “knowledge” of “Good and evil” a law written on everyone’s heart, some hardships and death.
These hardships, knowledge, death and curses are there to help willing individuals in fulfilling their earthly objective.
Scripture reference please?
If they completed their earthly objective there would be no reason to leave the tree of knowledge in the Garden or keep satan around. They state on earth for a reason. Everything is always driven by the objective.
If you do not know man’s earthly objective than you will not know if the objective was completed or not.
Everything starts with the objective.
Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)
You can take any command in scripture and have Biblical support for calling that command “Man’s Objective” and have Biblical support for saying that, but there are two overriding commands all other commands are bases on and subordinated to.
Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement given as a command?
God is Love, but how do we define this Love and measure this Love?
This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?
Can we measure the “love” one being has for another being by the amount the Lover is willing to unselfishly sacrifice for the other being?
Is God this ultimate Lover? Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measurement for pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all, but is totally for the sake of others [which would also be God’s sake])?
So, if God is not doing anything for His own sake and everything for the sake of others, would He be expecting or needing anything from man or would God just be trying to give the greatest gifts He could give to man?
The reason this “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes is because it compels even God. So, to have this Love would make us like God Himself, so why does God not just make us with this Love and place us in heaven?
Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?
Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?
Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?
What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill His Mission?
Man must have a very limited amount of autonomous free will to make at least the one choice to humbly accept or reject God’s Love (forgiveness/mercy/grace/charity).
Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.
Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity, this will enable us to fulfill our mission.
God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.
The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….) God hates sin, but does allow it, so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.
The Garden is a lousy (impossible) place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective and we can thank Adam and Eve for going through that example and providing us and them with that knowledge.
Sin is not only inevitable, but it is unfortunately necessary for humans.
The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By a free willing acceptance of God’s forgiveness, we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50.
This world is “very good”, but not “perfect” like heaven is perfect and does not have the same purpose as heaven. This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.
Death is not “bad” in and of itself, but the way good people go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.
Adam and Eve had no reason prior to sinning to humble themselves to the point of humbling themselves to accept pure undeserved charity, they had done nothing wrong, so they could accept everything their creator gave them deservingly, their Creator has responsibilities toward His creation.
The only way I see humans (not also being deity) to obtain Godly type Love is by what Jesus taught in Luke 7: 36-5There is no scripture saying man’s “nature” changed with Adam and Eve sinning. Adam and Eve sinned with the nature they had and with only one way to sin, so why would man’s nature have to change with the same “nature” and a ton of ways to sin (knowledge of good and evil)?
Nothing. Sorry Arminians, but an all-powerful, all-seeing God outside of time could have seen all of the free-will evil, natural or otherwise, and prevented it all from happening.
I am not talking about what God can “prevent” from happening, which is anything and everything, including man sinning.
What I am talking about is what God cannot instinctively give man or force man to have against the will of man. I just talked about it above.
Again, God cannot make Godly type Love instinctive to man, since Godly type Love is not a knee jerk rection, it is not robotic love. Godly type Love could not be forced on a person like a wife at a shotgun wedding, that would not be Loving on God’s part, nor would the love received be Godly type Love. Our obtaining Godly type Love has to be the result of our autonomous free will choice to humbly accept God’s Love (Charity, grace, mercy) in the form of forgiveness as a pure undeserving gift.
So God chooses to allow individuals to reject him, thus damning themselves to eternal punishment, rather than be accused of treating them like robots? Who is God answering to in this accusation? The clay pot?
Romans 9 takes lots deep thought especially concerning the context, but I will try to be as brief as I can:
Romans 9
Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.
The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.
The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).
Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.
Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?
If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?
This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.
Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).
How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.
Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.
If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.
To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.
Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.
Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?
