Who Dunit?

[CCWoody]

Would you say that this definition also applies to the other times in Genesis 1 where God declared something good?

I think that the other times reinforce that I have the correct interpretation. I haven't checked each instance, but I believe that they all have the same type of phrase: "God saw... it good." In what way can we say that all of these things are "good" unless we mean that God is rejoicing over His creation. They, after all, are incapable of doing either evil or good. Still, we know that "the Heavens are telling of the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork." (a Psalm from memory) IOW, as He looks over His handiwork, He sees a reflection of His glory.
.
.

I think I may do a little word study on this. Good food for thought.

Well, don't hide the results all to yourself....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Reformationist]

After looking at the initial question again I think I would be prepared to say that it was God who introduced evil into the world.

Adam & Eve are still accountable for introducing sin into the world for they did fall into temptation. Therefore this claim cannot be used to accuse God of being unjust.

All of creation has one purpose. That is to bring glory to the Creator. Why? Because He's God.

Nicely said.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I don't see anything to add to what has already been said here by CCWoody and Reformationist; they have made their point most eloquently. God is the author of ALL creation including evil, but He is not sinful.
We don't understand why, but it will all be revealed when we reach eternity. Until then "Woe to the one who quarrels with his maker--"Isaiah 45:9a

 

[Reformationist]

Actually, it is my contention that God created Adam in a state of innocency and neutrality, not holiness. So, it is also my contention that Adam possessed a nature that was capable of desiring between evil or good.

Do you think that God would call something "very good" which could desire to disobey Him?

I believe my views above makes these questions moot. Obviously since I don't view Adam as being created with only "good inclinations," I have no need for these inclinations to change.

Okay. So Adam and Eve, from the time of their creation, were totally neutral with regard to their inclination? See, the thing that is confusing me is that this seems a paradox when considering the reformed view, which I assume you hold, of the Fall.

As I understand it, man was created with a desire to only please God. When man fell his nature, which desired to serve and obey God, was radically corrupted and his desire was, then, to only rebell. Then, when man is regenerated, he is indwelt with the Spirit of God and, once again, he desires to do the Will of God. He still has a fallen, corrupted, fleshly side that continues to seek fleshly fulfillment.

The point is, original man's greatest desire was either to do the Will of God or it was to rebell. There is no such thing as operating from a point of neutrality. If a person is neutral then nothing would move them to make a choice, either for or against God.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Beware the second edge of truth's blade...
Surely evil has it's place in God's design unless the crucifixion of His son was an accident, or you call it a good thing.
It's consequence is of course, a good thing, but the thang itself ain't.
But it may be oversimplifying to say He brought it to pass. The paradox of predestination & individual accountability is best presented by:
Acts 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

-So we can see here that predestination & human accountability co-exist.

I'm reasonably certain it is our finite perspective along with our ontological insecurity that fertilizes our peception of self-freedom.

On the few times I haven't been confused by your obvious superior intellect, fortunately this happens to be one for them, I have been extremely impressed with your insight.

Thanks for sharing.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

You're suggesting that God changed her desires.

In a word, yes.

Let me qualify that by saying I'm do not know how He did it but yes, I think that's what He did. And, I think He had a grand reason for doing it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

• Matthew 7:17
  "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." ~ The Lord

Of course, this principle isn't only relevant today for it was equally as valid in Eden. Were Adam good in the sense of Matthew 7, then Adam would have been incapable of bearing bad fruit. Nevertheless, he did sin and fall. Were Adam evil in the sense of Matthew 7, then Adam would have been incapable of bearing good fruit.

So he was neither a "good" tree nor a "bad" tree but rather a neutral tree?

And, for the Lord to expect him to obey the command would have been wrong.

Wood, I'm confused. You seem to be saying that if at some point Adam's nature was bad, which prompted him to desire to disobey God, then God wouldn't have the right to expect him to obey? I don't understand. Isn't this exactly what those who oppose the tenets of Calvinism say? Is that what you're implying here:

This is often the straw man built to attack us Calvinists.

If so, what is your position? Are you saying that you, too, would believe God unfair if Adam were morally disinclined to obey and yet God still expected obedience?

Therefore, we are only left to conclude that Adam was neutral and fully able to choose between good and evil.

Sorry Wood but this doesn't make any sense to me. If Adam were "neutral" he would neither desire to please God any more than he would desire to disobey God so what would prompt him in one direction or the other?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

It is merely a presumption that good in this verse somehow means that man was created good, meaning with a nature bent toward doing good. Yet, read the passage this way:

"God saw.... and beheld [it] very good." Now, it is possible that what God saw was very good, but it is also possible that this verse is expressing God's immense pleasure in merely admiring His handiwork.

Yes, it's possible. However, I don't think God is so capricious to separate the beauty of the creation from the nature of the creation. I think it's clear that if God says it's "good" He, at least in this context, means that it is wholly "good," to include the inclination of that created being.

The problem is that if we say that what God saw was good in the sense of Matthew 7, then we have a big problem with scriptures.

Come on Wood...it might mean that you have a big problem but I can completely reconcile this issue, even with the Matthew 7 interpretation of "good."

Therefore, I conclude that the best reconcilation between scriptures is, not that Adam was himself holy, but that God is rejoicing over the work of His hand.

I think you're off on this. Let me ask you something. Do you think it would make God unholy if, for the purpose of His own glorify, He changed the inclination of the Adam and Eve? I'm not saying He forced their hand. He did not tempt them. He just changed their inclination.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I think that the other times reinforce that I have the correct interpretation. I haven't checked each instance, but I believe that they all have the same type of phrase: "God saw... it good." In what way can we say that all of these things are "good" unless we mean that God is rejoicing over His creation.

The problem here is that you are making a comparison between impersonal objects, the earth, the birds and bees, etc, and a moral being, man, angels, etc.

This defeats the whole purpose of the interpretation. You can't compare impersonal and personal beings any more than you can rightly compare pre-Fall man with post-Fall unregenerate man.

God bless

 

[Lotar]

It frightens me that so many people put God as responsible for bringing sin into this world.

 

[Reformationist]

It frightens me that so many people put God as responsible for bringing sin into this world.

Okay. Let's look at this differently than blaming who "brought sin into the world" because it seems as if you think that implies God brought sin into the world by sinning, which isn't what I think anyone means.

Answer these:

What made sin be sin?

What convicts man of unrighteousness?

 

[Rick Otto]

You embarrass me(hehee)!
You see intellect, & I see scars w/anecdotes attached.
Anyway...
Yes, neutrality is complicated in its implications.
Consider this about Adam, the good creation with the intent to please his maker:
He is good, but there are challenges with the life he has been given.
He is a living creature, therefore he must grow.
How does human charactrer grow? Through crisis.
It has been postulated that there are some inherent problems in obeying God's commands that are necessary for a human character to experience growth.
The 1st & most obvious (to me)is the command not to covet.
It is virtually impossible not to.
It is one of the first things infants do.
But specificaly, in this instance, perhaps Adam was torn between "cleaving" to his "wife" and not eating forbidden fruit.
Satan couldn't change desires, but he could sure confuse them.
Doubt mixed with truth & lies pulled off "the oldest trick in The Book."

What boggles me more than men falling is the #1 angel gettin' proud.

I see sin as a "subset" of evil. Evil can exist as potential, but sin doesn't exist until it happens. It seems the heart is the delivery device fro the first instance:
Isaiah 14:13"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"

Man's heart was created "good," but good is not perfect, and God's standard of goodness may include more than what some of us are willing to call good. Life is a character building experience

 

[CCWoody]

Come on Wood...it might mean that you have a big problem but I can completely reconcile this issue, even with the Matthew 7 interpretation of "good."

God bless

Are ya gonna make me beg for your interpretation?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. I'll get to the many questions as I am able. Today looks to be very busy and I have a date tonight with my daughter.

 

[Reformationist]

You embarrass me(hehee)!
You see intellect, & I see scars w/anecdotes attached.
Anyway...
Yes, neutrality is complicated in its implications.
Consider this about Adam, the good creation with the intent to please his maker:
He is good, but there are challenges with the life he has been given.
He is a living creature, therefore he must grow.
How does human charactrer grow? Through crisis.
It has been postulated that there are some inherent problems in obeying God's commands that are necessary for a human character to experience growth.
The 1st & most obvious (to me)is the command not to covet.
It is virtually impossible not to.
It is one of the first things infants do.
But specificaly, in this instance, perhaps Adam was torn between "cleaving" to his "wife" and not eating forbidden fruit.
Satan couldn't change desires, but he could sure confuse them.
Doubt mixed with truth & lies pulled off "the oldest trick in The Book."

What boggles me more than men falling is the #1 angel gettin' proud.

I see sin as a "subset" of evil. Evil can exist as potential, but sin doesn't exist until it happens. It seems the heart is the delivery device fro the first instance:
Isaiah 14:13"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"

Man's heart was created "good," but good is not perfect, and God's standard of goodness may include more than what some of us are willing to call good. Life is a character building experience

I completely agree that satan can seduce us by appealing to our already twisted desires. However, like us, satan is a created being. Granted, he is a very powerful creature but he is a created being nonetheless. He does not have the means to change the inclinations of a person.

It seems to me that the issue at this point is whether Adam could have been created with a inclination to do something other than please God. I do not think it's possible because I do not think God would have called "good" that which harbored a desire to displease and disobey Him. Others seem to think it's entirely feasible that Adam had a desire to disobey right from the start.

The way I see it is that Adam either had to have been created by God with a desire to rebell, which I find illogical, or an outside influence would have had to change his desires. If he were created with only good inclinations he would have been unable to change his own inclinations from good to bad, even if he had the power to do so, which I don't think he did.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Are ya gonna make me beg for your interpretation?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. I'll get to the many questions as I am able. Today looks to be very busy and I have a date tonight with my daughter.

I thought I already gave it. Anyway, I think that when God said it was "very good" that included the inclinations of Adam's heart. I think that, at some point, God changed the inclinations of Adam and Eve's heart. I think He did this with the covenent of redemption in mind and I think it was a totally godly decision based on God's desire to glorify Himself. As I said, He did not force Adam or Eve to sin but the Fall of man was most certainly part of God's immutable, sovereign Plan.

Have fun with your daughter my friend. See you when you get back.

God bless,
Don

 

[Knight]

I found an interesting article on the subject of the origin of sin. Since this is related to the topic at hand I thought I would post the link for comments.

http://www.carm.org/questions/didGodcreatesin.htm

Did God create sin?​

No, God did not create sin. God is holy and He would not create that which is contrary to His nature. Sinfulness is the opposite of holiness. It is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). God is the author of the Law which is a reflection of His holy character (Exodus 20). Therefore, God cannot create that which is in direct violation of the Law any more than a person can wish himself to be bigger than the sun. It just isn’t possible.
But, if God didn’t create sin, then where did it come from? This is a question that has been debated by theologians and philosophers for many years. I cannot say that I have any better answers than they. Nevertheless, let me venture a guess.
God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3).
But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible.
An analogy can be found in the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent can create the condition that makes disobedience possible yet the parent remains innocent if the child sins. For example, if a parent tells his child to clean up his room and the child does not, he has rebelled. But, the parent is not responsible for the child’s sin, nor did he cause the child to sin. The child had a choice to obey or not to obey.
Likewise, God has created the condition in the world where the ability to rebel against Him was possible. Yet, he is not responsible for that rebellion once it has been committed. Therefore, sin originated with Lucifer who was the first to rebel and entered the world through Adam who likewise chose disobedience. ​

Scriptures Quoted:
John 8:34, "Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
James 1:13, "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."
1 John 3:4, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."
Isaiah 14;12-15, "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13 "But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit."
Ezekiel 28:13-15, "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 "You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you."

Please note that this is talking about the origins of sin not the origins of evil.

 

[Reformationist]

I found an interesting article on the subject of the origin of sin. Since this is related to the topic at hand I thought I would post the link for comments.

http://www.carm.org/questions/didGodcreatesin.htm


Please note that this is talking about the origins of sin not the origins of evil.

Again, this must start from the perspective that God calls "good" that which has an inherent desire to displease Him. We cannot change our own inclinations good to bad or bad to good. This is shown in the nature of unregenerate man as well. He is helpless to overcome his depravity because he never desires to be inclined to God until and outside source, namely God, changes his inclinations and desires. It's the same with pre-Fall man, or satan for that matter. Both were created with a nature that only desired to please God. Even if they had the power to change their inclination, since their desires and inclinations are only good then the possibility of changing from good to bad on their own is contradictory. They would never have desired to have bad desires in the first place so actually changing them is a moot issue. Now God not only has the opportunity, He also has the means. He is able to change our inclinations and, if you are a child of God, then He has changed your inclinations from bad to good. God not only had the opportunity and the means, He had the motive. How could God have displayed the "riches of His glory" in mercy if there weren't objects deserving of His wrath? He needed us to Fall so He changed our inclinations. That doesn't make Him unjust. It makes Him sovereign. He didn't force Adam or Eve to sin. They did so of their own free will. The fact that that was their inclination to begin with is only relevent when considering that God is able to bring about the Plan that brings Himself the most glory.

God bless

 

[Knight]

Again, this must start from the perspective that God calls "good" that which has an inherent desire to displease Him. We cannot change our own inclinations good to bad or bad to good. This is shown in the nature of unregenerate man as well. He is helpless to overcome his depravity because he never desires to be inclined to God until and outside source, namely God, changes his inclinations and desires. It's the same with pre-Fall man, or satan for that matter. Both were created with a nature that only desired to please God. Even if they had the power to change their inclination, since their desires and inclinations are only good then the possibility of changing from good to bad on their own is contradictory. They would never have desired to have bad desires in the first place so actually changing them is a moot issue. Now God not only has the opportunity, He also has the means. He is able to change our inclinations and, if you are a child of God, then He has changed your inclinations from bad to good. God not only had the opportunity and the means, He had the motive. How could God have displayed the "riches of His glory" in mercy if there weren't objects deserving of His wrath? He needed us to Fall so He changed our inclinations. That doesn't make Him unjust. It makes Him sovereign. He didn't force Adam or Eve to sin. They did so of their own free will. The fact that that was their inclination to begin with is only relevent when considering that God is able to bring about the Plan that brings Himself the most glory.

God bless

I see where you're coming from, Don.

This is not a topic for new Christians IMO.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't know, Ref. Sounds kinda iffy to me. I would expect God to tell us about that as he did in the case of Pharoah's hardened-by-God heart.

It seems more effecacious to put a "good" will into test mode by giving it a conflict requiring a judgement call.
I think to call a will "free" is a mistake. It seems to me the word "self" could easily replace the word "free". We either do God's will, or someone else's. Even Jesus said,'I do the will of my Father,' rather than "I choose to do the will of my Father". You may claim there's no difference since the personal decision is implicit, but the existence of a choice does not necessarily imply freedom to make it, and I've yet to be shown where Jesus valued the will of Himself or anyone else's above the will of His Father, yet Jesus gave his life for those "wills of lesser value."
It appears to me, this paradox of Total Sovereignity of God & Man's Accountability is the most difficult obstacle to the acceptance of Predestination & Limited Atonement.

Fortunately, I love the occaisional enigmatic paradox.

 

[Reformationist]

I don't know, Ref. Sounds kinda iffy to me. I would expect God to tell us about that as he did in the case of Pharoah's hardened-by-God heart.

I don't personally think that His lack of explicit testimony as to Adam and Eve's natural, original inclination is an issue because I think He was explicit. He not only called them "good," He called them "very good." I don't think God is so arbitrary as to call the magnificence of His creation "very good" and only be referring to the majesty of His power in their creation. This may be the case for impersonal creations that lack an inherent morality, i.e., rocks, birds, the earth itself, etc. However, mankind has another very important aspect to his inherent nature that God could not overlook in His assessment, that is, their inner being, i.e., their heart, their motives, their inclinations, their desires. It would be incongruous for God to say they were "very good" if they had the propensity to desire to disobey Him.

It seems more effecacious to put a "good" will into test mode by giving it a conflict requiring a judgement call.

Again, this is rather a humanistic (I mean no offense with this term) way of looking at the sovereign design of creation. Adam and Eve were put into "test mode." However, like Jesus, their natural inclination was to always obey and please their Creator. Had this not changed then their actions would have always reflected their natural desire to please God. A personal being, be it eternal or created, cannot act contrary to their greatest desire when faced with a moral decision. Christ Himself is the perfect example. His greatest desire was always to please God. Therefore, while He had the natural ability to choose to sin, He had no moral desire to ever disobey God and thus He chose according to His greatest desire whenever He was faced with temptation. He did not suffer, as we do, with conflicting desires. For Him, all things always remained equal. Therefore, He was "free" to act according to His desire to please God. We, OTOH, do not have desires that always remain equal. Our greatest desire changes because of our conflicting natures, i.e., regenerate and fallen. Though it is now natural for us to obey God, our flesh still exerts power over us for various reasons. As we give power to our fleshly desires they become the desires which control us more powerfully than our godly desires. When they become our greatest desire we give in to them. That is why Christians are warned to guard their hearts against sin gaining a foothold.

I think to call a will "free" is a mistake.

If this is in reference to my use of the word "free" in regards to Adam and Eve's choice to sin let me assure you that I only meant that their decision was not coerced by God. In fact, I think the true definition of "free will" is that a will is self determined, as you allude to here:

It seems to me the word "self" could easily replace the word "free".

We either do God's will, or someone else's. Even Jesus said,'I do the will of my Father,' rather than "I choose to do the will of my Father". You may claim there's no difference since the personal decision is implicit, but the existence of a choice does not necessarily imply freedom to make it, and I've yet to be shown where Jesus valued the will of Himself or anyone else's above the will of His Father, yet Jesus gave his life for those "wills of lesser value."

I completely agree with this assessment.

It appears to me, this paradox of Total Sovereignity of God & Man's Accountability is the most difficult obstacle to the acceptance of Predestination & Limited Atonement.

I agree but I would have to say that the reason this is the case is due more to ignorance of how these two seemingly contradictory doctrines correlate to each other and, actually, support each other.

Fortunately, I love the occaisional enigmatic paradox.

I agree. I would be quite worried if my finite mind could comprehensively grasp the infinite character of God.

God bless