Featured Was Sin and Death designed by God?

But is God in control over the consequences that sin has on mankind? For example, labor pains are said to be a direct result of the fall. Did God have any control over that? Could God have made it so women do not have labor pains, or is that beyond His control?

 

That is because I'm interested in the consequences of sin upon mankind as it relates to God's sovereignty. If you don't wish to discuss that I will understand.

So, you believe labor pain, like hell, is punishment for the fall. Is the fallen condition of total inability to willingly respond to God's revelation, commands or appeals likewise a penal consequence? If not, what kind of consequence is it and is God sovereign over it?

 

Aren't these questions not particularly applicable to the OP?

Greater "labor pains" is part of the direct statement of God's judgment upon the woman. God never promised that birthing children would be without any pain, He just increased the pain.

This judgment upon Eve was "after the fact" judgment, the same as her heart would be towards her husband (women sinfully push against that every generation).

What was before the fact, judgment placed on disobedience? Death.

The Scriptures state death passed upon all men because Adam sinned. As the Scriptures state:

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

​

See, death was not the consequence of sin, but the human condition (without Christ) that obliges acts of sin. That is why death is not determined as to the amount of sin, nor the type of sin. Sin is sin, and the consequence of death. Sin doesn't reign, but death reigns.

According to John, Christ paid for all sin of the whole world.

Then why is there still death?

Because the sin debt has been met does not preclude life is automatically given.

Reconciliation must take place. The original fault.

Adam turned from God and took of the fruit. Look at the sequence given by Scriptures. Eve gave the fruit to Adam - he, without trickery or deceit by Satanic influence, ate.

Now, God says to Adam, "“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;..."

See, it was not the sin of eating that brought death, but turning from God to embrace that which God condemned.

It is that "turning" away from God, shunning God, refusing God... that brings death. (John 1)

Every person in the Lake of fire will say as the rich man in hell, "I deserve this." NOT because of some sin, the amount of sin, or the type of sin, but because they refused the light, turned from the light, did not embrace the light, because their deeds were evil and they didn't want exposure any more than Adam and Eve desired exposure. They embraced darkness (death) rather than light (life).

 

Where is this going?

Now I'm curious.

Does the question mean 'design' or 'intend'? Did God 'design' - invent, engineer, build, create, establish - or 'intend for man to commit sin and then suffer death'?

When God created - our Universe and everything therein - the conditions were established for life (among other things). When the conditions are 'right' (and God intends) life exists; when those conditions do not exist (for instance, lack of oxygen) life ends. At least, this applies to 'life as we know it'. Since the conditions prior to the Fall are gone, one cannot do much in the way of analysis for those conditions.

Sin, at the simplest, is rebellion against - denying, disobeying, ignoring - God. God established the conditions were established by God for His creation 'man' to live in harmony with God; to acknowledge, heed, fellowship with God. However, by establishing such a condition AND allowing or granting man the ability to decide for himself, the possibility existed that man could disobey God.

Nor did this not occur to God. Did God intend it? Not in the ordinary sense, no. God does not promote or encourage 'sin'. God allowed it, knowing His plan was in effect and mankind would eventually be reconciled to Him and be in harmony with Him for Eternity.

So what about consequences? Consider this: Does God 'smite' cigarette smokers with lung cancer for their sin? Or is lung cancer simply the result of various physical laws acting together under certain circumstances? (Hint: Not every smoker suffers lung cancer, and some non-smokers contract lung cancer and not from 'second-hand' smoke.)

Skandelon; what is your question really? Are you attempting to blame God for sin and rebellion?

 

Archie the Preacher

Yep.....in almost every thread this same question appears....

 

----------

 

God "could have" designed "robots without choice" and thus Lucifer would have had no choice but to remain sinless and faithful to God.

Or God could have "designed him to be a robot that fails".

But instead God "designed free will" and as you point out free will by it's very nature includes the ability to make a bad choice, a selfish choice even if the one choosing is a perfect sinless Angel such as Lucifer was.

At EVERY STEP - God paid a high cost for sovereignly "choosing" the free will model over "robots".

1. God COULD have zapped Lucifer's brain before Lucifer even knew he was about to make a bad choice - and spared the loss of one of the most powerful created beings in the universe.

2. God COULD have wiped out Lucifer after he did rebel - or ZAP 1/3 of the angel's so that no Angel could have followed Lucifer in Rebellion - and SAVED Himself 1/3 of the sinless unfallen angels - and war in heaven.

3. God COULD have zapped Adam and Eve so they would not choose to disobey in the "test" He gave them... or failing that God could have wiped them out and "started over". Saving himself from having to die on the cross to redeem mankind.

4. God "COULD" have zapped all their children to be faithful - and then no flood. Saving himself having to wipe out the entire planet.

5. God "COULD" have stopped the Jews from rejecting Christ ...

The "cost" that God pays at every step to sustain free will is almost unthinkable.

in Christ,

Bob

 

:applause::applause:

At everyone of these points in time that you listed the deterministic worldview makes NO COMMON SENSE. When you remove free will (responsibility) from the equation all of this history become pure non-sense. It confounds everything when you simply leave out human response-ability.

 

You say 'natural consequence' but who designs nature? This is where you continue to take this discussion but you fail to address what makes something's nature. It doesn't just happen by chance...we all know that no self-respecting Calvinist would make that claim. So what or who determined that 'natural consequence.'

Plus, even if I concede that total inability is a undesigned 'natural consequence' of the fall that God didn't decide upon or control in any way, you still have the problem regarding the nature of revelation.

Why? Because God designed revelation and its ability in light of man's fallen condition. He had to decide that the revelation he sent to fallen man wouldn't be sufficient to enable the fallen condition to willingly respond to it. That doesn't just happen by accident. It was a decision of God and you really can't get around that in your system no matter how hard you try. You can appeal to mystery, but that is your only alternative...and all of us have to do that at some points in our systematic approach to scripture. We just have to be objective enough to own those mysteries.

Deciding what mysteries you are willing to live with in light of the biblical revelation is really what drives how one chooses a systematic theology, IMO.

 

I agree completely. I don't believe Biblicist would agree with this in the sense that he doesn't believe God established the conditions of the fall by which mankind would be made totally unable to respond willingly to the revelation of God. He argues this is a 'natural consequence' but that God didn't design or control it.

We are in agreement.

We are debating various SYSTEMS of theology, as that is the purpose of the forum. Thus, when one questions another system's perspective of God that should not be equated with questioning God Himself (as that would be a question begging fallacy). Both sides question their opponent's view of God, including Iconoclast, but I'm not so naive as to suggest that my opponents arguments or questions against my non-Calvinistic soteriology is an act of disrespect and rebellion against God Himself. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

 

I don't think this can be equated with God's sovereign control over the consequences of sin upon human nature in light of God's own revelation...do you?

God

As it relates to man's abilities? God did.

So, total inability just IS and God has no control over it? Regeneration has the ability to overcome it in your system, so why do you insist God doesn't have the ability to overcome it through an 'enabling' power in our system?

And you didn't answer my point regarding the power of regeneration.

 

You keep leaving out the most important aspects of my posts...at least from my perspective. Can you reply to these parts?

 

First, I responded to your erroneous signature line in a new thread...man, that is very straw-manish of you.

Second, I'm not seeing how the explanation of YOUR position is answering the question I posed regarding the ability of God to enable a response. Your position suggests that God can and does over come the fallen nature of man by the effectual act of regeneration, yet you maintain it would be impossible for God to invoke any other type of enabling assistance. So, is it your contention that God is ONLY able to effectually regenerate the lost condition in order to get a sure response, and even if He wanted to He could not merely enable a free response, similar to the one Adam made in the garden?