Jesus Christ - God Incarnate - Lamb of God ... ALWAYS the plan, or just a patch after the fall?

[37818]

1 John 5:1, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

 

[atpollard]

Who appointed you to decide what the options are?

The person that asked the question.
When you ask a question, you are free to ask whatever question YOU choose.
If I answer a question that you did not ask, then I have not answered your question and you are right to say so.
When you respond to my question by answering a question that I did not ask, I am within my rights to say so.

 

[Brightfame52]

BF, you're in a dangerous place believing it's God will for man to sin.

No Im not, it was Gods will for Adam and man in Adam to sin, Christ was already setup to die for the sins of the elect before the world began, before Adam began 1 Pet 1:18-20

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Too bad you guys cant see that,

 

[Charlie24]

No Im not, it was Gods will for Adam and man in Adam to sin, Christ was already setup to die for the sins of the elect before the world began, before Adam began 1 Pet 1:18-20

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Too bad you guys cant see that,

Oh Boy, that's a total and complete misunderstanding of the Word of God.

But it is what it is.

 

[Psalty]

OK.

Option A is God creating mankind that can not or will not sin, which results in Adam and Eve and their descendants living in Eden forever as obedient creatures that know God loves them because they always obey (just like the angels that did not rebel or the stars in the sky that obey the purpose for which God created them).

Option B is God creating mankind that can and will sin, which results in a fallen people deserving death but receiving a savior and learning that God loves us in spite of our sin and loves us more than as mere ”obedient creation” … God chose to adopt us as beloved children at unimaginable personal cost to Himself.

Your alternative choice is “God should not have created mankind”. (Which is an option, but one that God rejected).

Here was your original statement:

Imagine that you are a parent and, as a parent, you are somehow granted a “wish”:

Option A:
You can have a child that always obeys, but believes that you only love them because they are obedient.

Option B:
You can have a child that stubbornly rebels, but knows that you love them in spite of their disobedience.

As a parent, which do you wish for?
[What you see as a “problem”, I see as an “opportunity”.]

I get to wish for:
A: a child that always obeys
B: a child that stubbornly rebels
Assuming no change, and this is wish that is granted that is permenantly the case, neither is preferable.

With your later clarification which is quoted at the top, I would say you have caveated both of your options.

Option A. Humanity that always obeys. The only way this exists is if they are created without the ability to choose. As to your angel option, they have had the ability to choose and can potentially choose again.

Option B. These people deserve death for rebellion. God loves them in spite of their disobedience. You say that he saves them at His own cost.
HOWEVER: for B, Calvinists really mean that He only loves SOME of these children to the point of saving them, but not all. For some it is His good-pleasure to let them remain in rebellion and suffer eternal hell… seemingly for His glory.
NOT only that, but they dont actually choose to not rebel, but He effectually changes their mind, putting them in Option A where they must obey His decree to obey Him in the way of Salvation.

If I’ve gotten anything wrong in this, please correct me. I am not trying to mis-represent your view.

PS- I do have some time later tonight, so I will be posting at least one post on God’s predestined plan of Jesus according to a non-calvinist.

 

[atpollard]

Your options A and B are unrealistic and irrelevant to life as it is experienced. No one has a child who always obeys or who always rebels.

It was an analogy for God creating mankind (Adam). There are only two possibilities:

Option A: Man (Adam) can not and will not sin.
Option B: Man (Adam) can and will sin.

From there, we explore the consequences of each “option”:

Option A: Adam knows obedience, but not grace.
Option B: Adam learns about God’s grace (and Love).

 

[Ascetic X]

Oh Boy, that's a total and complete misunderstanding of the Word of God.

But it is what it is.

Now ask him if it was God’s will for Lucifer to sin.

He is so confused, he thinks everything that God permits is also what God wants to happen. This gross distortion of God’s holy character is blasphemy.

 

[Charlie24]

Now ask him if it was God’s will for Lucifer to sin.

He is so confused, he thinks everything that God permits is also what God wants to happen. This gross distortion of God’s holy character is blasphemy.

I've tried many times through the years to show him that, but there's no hope.

 

[Ascetic X]

It was an analogy for God creating mankind (Adam). There are only two possibilities:

Option A: Man (Adam) can not and will not sin.
Option B: Man (Adam) can and will sin.

From there, we explore the consequences of each “option”:

Option A: Adam knows obedience, but not grace.
Option B: Adam learns about God’s grace (and Love).

No, there is a third possibility.

Option C: Adam (man) can sin, but does not.

It was not God’s will that Adam commit sin, but He knew it would happen.

Option C is where we are to be now, with the Holy Spirit empowering us.

 

[atpollard]

Here was your original statement:

I get to wish for:
A: a child that always obeys
B: a child that stubbornly rebels
Assuming no change, and this is wish that is granted that is permenantly the case, neither is preferable.

With your later clarification which is quoted at the top, I would say you have caveated both of your options.

Option A. Humanity that always obeys. The only way this exists is if they are created without the ability to choose. As to your angel option, they have had the ability to choose and can potentially choose again.

Option B. These people deserve death for rebellion. God loves them in spite of their disobedience. You say that he saves them at His own cost.
HOWEVER: for B, Calvinists really mean that He only loves SOME of these children to the point of saving them, but not all. For some it is His good-pleasure to let them remain in rebellion and suffer eternal hell… seemingly for His glory.
NOT only that, but they dont actually choose to not rebel, but He effectually changes their mind, putting them in Option A where they must obey His decree to obey Him in the way of Salvation.

If I’ve gotten anything wrong in this, please correct me. I am not trying to mis-represent your view.

PS- I do have some time later tonight, so I will be posting at least one post on God’s predestined plan of Jesus according to a non-calvinist.

Humanity is not the issue. I jumped in on a debate over whether God MADE Adam sin and was pointing out that God had only 2 possibilities for Adam … Adam was created so that he COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT fall, or Adam was created so that Adam COULD AND WOULD fall. From there, we examine what people know of God and the relationship between God and Man both WITHOUT A FALL and WITH A FALL.

I had hoped that you might see that even a human parent would rather have their child KNOW that they are loved unconditionally, than believe that OBEDIENCE PURCHASED that love. God chose to create an Adam that COULD AND WOULD fall so that human beings would know that God Loves Unconditionally (rather than believe that our obedience made us acceptable and we were always 1 sin away from joining Satan and the fallen angels).

 

[atpollard]

No, there is a third possibility.

Option C: Adam (man) can sin, but does not.

It was not God’s will that Adam commit sin, but He knew it would happen.

List all the people that “can sin” but “does not” … does the fact that ZERO people achieve the Pelagian ideal say something about “Option C”?

Option C is where we are to be now, with the Holy Spirit empowering us.

That’s Total Sanctification, which most Christians admit cannot be achieved this side of “glorification”.
But If you claim that you no longer sin, who am I to argue … I will leave it to the words of John and our LORD to judge you [above my pay grade].

 

[Ascetic X]

Humanity is not the issue. I jumped in on a debate over whether God MADE Adam sin and was pointing out that God had only 2 possibilities for Adam … Adam was created so that he COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT fall, or Adam was created so that Adam COULD AND WOULD fall. From there, we examine what people know of God and the relationship between God and Man both WITHOUT A FALL and WITH A FALL.

I had hoped that you might see that even a human parent would rather have their child KNOW that they are loved unconditionally, than believe that OBEDIENCE PURCHASED that love. God chose to create an Adam that COULD AND WOULD fall so that human beings would know that God Loves Unconditionally (rather than believe that our obedience made us acceptable and we were always 1 sin away from joining Satan and the fallen angels).

Wrong.

You presented two options and imposed them on God, as though you decide what options God has, and nobody can add any options to your scheme.

God did NOT create Adam so that Adam could and would fall.

God created Adam, without wanting Adam to fall into sin. It was the devil who wanted Adam to sin.

God created Adam, wanting Adam to be obedient, but knowing Adam would sin. This does NOT mean God wanted Adam to sin.

You make it sound like when God gives commands, He’s hoping that they will be disobeyed. But God abhors sin. He would not do anything to deliberately bring sin into the world.

 

[Psalty]

Humanity is not the issue. I jumped in on a debate over whether God MADE Adam sin and was pointing out that God had only 2 possibilities for Adam … Adam was created so that he COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT fall, or Adam was created so that Adam COULD AND WOULD fall. From there, we examine what people know of God and the relationship between God and Man both WITHOUT A FALL and WITH A FALL.

I had hoped that you might see that even a human parent would rather have their child KNOW that they are loved unconditionally, than believe that OBEDIENCE PURCHASED that love. God chose to create an Adam that COULD AND WOULD fall so that human beings would know that God Loves Unconditionally (rather than believe that our obedience made us acceptable and we were always 1 sin away from joining Satan and the fallen angels).

Yes, you held in the prior thread that Adam and Eve were decreed to ultimately sin to bring about God‘s purpose. That it was God’s purpose and intention to have Adam fall. Though it has appeared that you wanted to say that He didnt decree that bite of the fruit, just that He decreed that it would happen.

Again, my stance is that God’s plan was that even though He did not ordain that the fall would occur, yet HE KNEW that it would, and so His plan was that Christ would come, and belief in Jesus would grant “Christ in you, the hope of glory”, a being filled with Christ and the love of God where we will be conformed to His image and not choose sin, Just like Christ while He was on the earth did not choose sin. This is the perfection we seek at Glorification.

 

[Ben1445]

Humanity is not the issue. I jumped in on a debate over whether God MADE Adam sin and was pointing out that God had only 2 possibilities for Adam … Adam was created so that he COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT fall, or Adam was created so that Adam COULD AND WOULD fall. From there, we examine what people know of God and the relationship between God and Man both WITHOUT A FALL and WITH A FALL.

I had hoped that you might see that even a human parent would rather have their child KNOW that they are loved unconditionally, than believe that OBEDIENCE PURCHASED that love. God chose to create an Adam that COULD AND WOULD fall so that human beings would know that God Loves Unconditionally (rather than believe that our obedience made us acceptable and we were always 1 sin away from joining Satan and the fallen angels).

Could is not definite. You may have a could not and subsequently would not.
There may be a could and would.
But because there is a could, there must also be an opportunity for a could but would not.

I couldn’t visit family because they are too far away and I would not be able to go.
I could visit family and I determined that I would go visit family.
I could visit family and I determined that I would not go visit family.

If you can, you do not have to.
People could have listened to Noah.
Lot could have gone the other direction. Naomi and family could have stayed where they belonged.
Jerusalem could have been gathered, “but ye would not.” Scripture doesn’t bear out your only two options. It is intentional blindness to ignore personal responsibility and the array of options available.

 

[Ascetic X]

List all the people that “can sin” but “does not” … does the fact that ZERO people achieve the Pelagian ideal say something about “Option C”?


That’s Total Sanctification, which most Christians admit cannot be achieved this side of “glorification”.
But If you claim that you no longer sin, who am I to argue … I will leave it to the words of John and our LORD to judge you [above my pay grade].

Do not put words in my mouth that I never said.

I said:

“Option C: Adam (man) can sin, but does not.

It was not God’s will that Adam commit sin, but He knew it would happen.

Option C is where we are to be now, with the Holy Spirit empowering us.“

Option C is the goal. We are supposed to be in a state of not sinning, but we need the Holy Spirit to enable us to live such a holy life. I never said I or anyone else, aside from Jesus, never sins.

We do strive to renew our minds and perform only what is pleasing to our Lord and Master. We are not sinless, but we keep trying to be.

Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

[Psalty]

I had hoped that you might see that even a human parent would rather have their child KNOW that they are loved unconditionally, than believe that OBEDIENCE PURCHASED that love.

However in Calvinism He does not love ALL His children unconditionally.

 

[atpollard]

Could is not definite. You may have a could not and subsequently would not.

Yes, in theory. In reality, we know that Adam DID SIN. The fact that Adam DID means that Adam COULD [it is self evident that if Adam “could not” sin, then there would have been no fall].

Therefore, the only real alternative to what DID HAPPEN (Adam COULD and DID sin) would be for God to create an Adam that COULD NOT sin (in which case mankind WOULD NOT have fallen from Eden). God did not create an Adam incapable of sin, did He?

The argument for a “could sin” but “does not sin” is the essence of Pelagianism (which is false by virtue of the fact that 100% of all people “do sin” … making “does not sin” a hypothetical myth).

 

[atpollard]

However in Calvinism He does not love ALL His children unconditionally.

”For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”. (Who said that?)
“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.” (Who said that?)

 

[Psalty]

”For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”. (Who said that?)

Paul, and this does not mean that they are not God’s children, nor that they can again be in Him, nor that those are in Him cant be removed… keep reading! :

for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
— Romans 11:21-23

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him.” (Who said that?)

Again, the assumption that because they are under a different father at this time, that God is not their father.

I understand it is uncomfortable to face the full weight of your Analogy, but your Father in that scenario has 2 children, and He decides which to save, and which to condemn. He does not love them equally, and He is the father of all for He created them both. Don’t run away from this, accept the full horror of your systematic. He has two children who He has determined to save one, and reject and condemn the other to hell… on Calvinism. Even you are a better Father than that, for hopefully you would be horrified and save both of your children.

Edit: Additionally, your Father doesn’t have a Type B child, because on your system He converts them to a Type A child.

 

[atpollard]

I understand it is uncomfortable to face the full weight of your Analogy, but your Father in that scenario has 2 children, and He decides which to save, and which to condemn.

Just for the record, does your God decide who to save? [Does Ephesians 2:8-9 apply to your God or just the “Calvinist” God?]

He does not love them equally, and He is the father of all for He created them both.

Did your God create them both or is only the “Calvinist” God the great creator?

Don’t run away from this, accept the full horror of your systematic. He has two children who He has determined to save one, and reject and condemn the other to hell… on Calvinism.

Does your God send people to hell, or is that only the “Calvinist” God that condemns sinners to the “second death”?

Even you are a better Father than that, for hopefully you would be horrified and save both of your children.

Does your ‘god’ save everybody (universalism) or are we (human beings) just more moral than the God of “Calvinism” and the Bible that saves His sheep and condemns the goats?

I am just checking since you make it seem like the non-Calvinist god rejects Biblical teaching on Judgement and Hell.