A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

[Skandelon]

I have answered it.

No, you haven't.

Here's the question: "Who is the first person who thought of the heinous sin of molesting and torturing a small child?"

My answer paraphrased: The issue isn't child molestation (which, despite his statement to the contrary, Skandelon posed for it's shock and abhorrence factor) but the origin of sin. What's its root?

Actually, its a question carried over from another thread at the request of Luke. The level of its abhorrence and its shock is to help differentiate from the typical sterile theological discussion where its much easier to say something like "God decreed whatsoever comes to pass" to the more practical side of applied theology where you have to sit down across from parents who have lost their child to this type of heinous crime. It's easy to say God decreed man's rebellion when its simply eating a forbidden fruit, but when the sin involves more than fruit the theological word games cease and Calvinists duck and cover.

Now, unless you told us that God or man was the first one to originate the sinful act to rebel in the garden, then you haven't answered anything. You have only shifted the example from one scenario (child rapist) to another (the fall).

The problem with noncalvinists is that they don't see the lie as something as repulsive and abhorrent as molestation, or as something as having a more detrimental effect (or really something needing atonement), but the lie is why a child is molested in the first place

If that were the case then all those affected by that lie would be child molestors. Clearly there was a first time for a child to be molested and killed and I asked who originated that particular thought? God or Man? If you can't answer that question, just say so, but this game of accusing non-calvinists of not having a sever enough view of sin is absurd and blatantly diversionary.

So where did the lie originate?

Is Satan called the father of pedophiles, or the father of lies?

(Winman gets the prize.)

So, this is your answer? Satan made me do it? Really?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
There is no sin too great that God cannot forgive. He is not impotent.
I feel sorry for you.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,....
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The sin against the Spirit of God. No more sacrifice for sins.

No Cross, No salvation.

BTW. True believers will never go this far, but the writer of Hebrews is speaking to false professors as well as true possessors.

 

[DHK]

I have answered it.

Here's the question: "Who is the first person who thought of the heinous sin of molesting and torturing a small child?"

My answer paraphrased: The issue isn't child molestation (which, despite his statement to the contrary, Skandelon posed for it's shock and abhorrence factor) but the origin of sin. What's its root?

The problem with noncalvinists is that they don't see the lie as something as repulsive and abhorrent as molestation, or as something as having a more detrimental effect (or really something needing atonement), but the lie is why a child is molested in the first place. The lie is what corrupted Adam and Eve, and the lie came from outside. Yes, Adam was created good, but he was not created incorruptible. (Neither were the angels, it seems.) One can be forgiven for molesting a child, but not for bearing false witness against the Holy Ghost.

So where did the lie originate?

Is Satan called the father of pedophiles, or the father of lies?

(Winman gets the prize.)

That is dodging the question. You never answered it. You made up your own and answered your own question. Why not stick with the OP? Here, we will give you another chance.

Please allow me to cut to the heart of this matter...

Before a sin like murder, molestation, torture or some other heinous crime is committed there is a temptation or a thought that comes into the mind of the criminal, right?

Now, who is the first person who thought of the heinous sin of molesting and torturing a small child? Did God originate that thought or did it originate in the mind of a sinful criminal?

1. If God, then you have to defend your position that God is not the author of evil.
2. If the criminal, then you have to defend your position that God "controls all things," because you have someone creating or originating something apart from God.

Can you do better this time?

 

[Skandelon]

BTW, placing the blame on Satan doesn't remove the problem regarding the origin of the sinful thought, because if it originates in Satan then you have the same problem as if it originates in man, which is that God must not be in complete control because something was created or originated apart from Him. So, you haven't avoided the issue posed by the question in the OP.

 

[DHK]

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,....
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The sin against the Spirit of God. No more sacrifice for sins.

No Cross, No salvation.

BTW. True believers will never go this far, but the writer of Hebrews is speaking to false professors as well as true possessors.

I agree that he is; and because he is the truth remains--He is able to save them to the uttermost. It is a very strong statement.

But I am not limited by that one verse. God never limited himself to anyone. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." It does not say that "whosoever shall call (except for those who have committed these sins....) upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
It seems to me that Aaron has added to the Word of God. Or anyone else that takes that same position. God's hands are not tied. He is not limited in who he can save.

His ear is not heavy that he cannot hear.
His hand is not shortened that it cannot save.

 

[convicted1]

Posted by Skandelon:

Before a sin like murder, molestation, torture or some other heinous crime is committed there is a temptation or a thought that comes into the mind of the criminal, right?

This is correct!! We don't just walk up and do it without it coming to mind first.

Now, who is the first person who thought of the heinous sin of molesting and torturing a small child? Did God originate that thought or did it originate in the mind of a sinful criminal?

Okay, now I will try to lay the "groundwork" for the "originator" of sin!!

Isa. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

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:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Ezek. 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

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

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Sinning never took place until after Lucifer rebelled against God and wanted to have God under him, to be his servant. In Isa. 14, it states that he wanted to exhalt his throne above the stars of God!! In John 8:44, it states that Lucifer/Satan was the father of it(lies).

Greek word used as "father" in John 8:44; patēr

1) generator or male ancestor

a) either the nearest ancestor: father of the corporeal nature, natural fathers, both parents

b) a more remote ancestor, the founder of a family or tribe, progenitor of a people, forefather: so Abraham is called, Jacob and David

1) fathers i.e. ancestors, forefathers, founders of a nation

c) one advanced in years, a senior

2) metaph.

a) the originator and transmitter of anything

1) the authors of a family or society of persons animated by the same spirit as himself

2) one who has infused his own spirit into others, who actuates and governs their minds

b) one who stands in a father's place and looks after another in a paternal way

c) a title of honour

So you see, sin started with Lucifer's rebellion in heaven. When he was "kicked out", he then beguiled Eve(how long after he was "kicked out" of heaven before the incident with Eve took place, I have no idea), and she ate, and then she gave to Adam and he ate. God gave them the command of what to and what not to eat. When they ate of that tree which they shouldn't have, their eyes were opened, and they saw their nakedness, and they became ashamed and girded themselves with fig leaves. So, Lucifer is the "generator" of sin, but we who willingly sin, are just as guilty!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[The Archangel]

Please allow me to cut to the heart of this matter...

Before a sin like murder, molestation, torture or some other heinous crime is committed there is a temptation or a thought that comes into the mind of the criminal, right?

Now, who is the first person who thought of the heinous sin of molesting and torturing a small child? Did God originate that thought or did it originate in the mind of a sinful criminal?

1. If God, then you have to defend your position that God is not the author of evil.
2. If the criminal, then you have to defend your position that God "controls all things," because you have someone creating or originating something apart from God.

The problem with this is the question is hopelessly flawed. Asking this question and expecting a cut and dry answer is like asking someone to give a logical, geometrical definition of a square circle.

The fact of the matter is there is a mystery here--something we cannot fit into a neat little box. There are facts that scripture provides that lets us see there is a lot going on, and most of the mechanism we are not privy to.

Scripture affirms the following:

1. God is absolutely sovereign
2. Man is absolutely responsible for his actions
3. God brings "evil" (or calamity)
4. God brings disaster
5. In all of God's bringing calamity or disaster, He does not sin.
​

So, we may freely say that God ordains sin, but He doesn't cause it. As one of my seminary professors put it: God stands behind good (ie. is the cause of it) and He stands beside evil (ie. He doesn't cause it, but He chooses not to stop it).

Why? Because evil serves God's greater purpose. But, evil is not necessarily created, like a plant or air. Evil and sin is based in rebellion against God. So, evil or sin is the absence of obedience.

God forbid I or anyone else have to sit across from parents that have lost their child to a molesting murderer. However, in that case, what is more comforting? God's sovereignty--that He has some plan at work, even if we can't see what He's doing or man's sovereignty--that he can do as he pleases and thwart God's purposes so that there is no purpose in a great and heinous tragedy?

This is why reformed theologians say that God foreordains the free actions of human beings to serve His ultimate purposes and to magnify His glory.

So, it is not an easy cut and dry answer. There are many levels at which God's will works. We know this. But, we are not given all the information in Scripture. And that is, I think, on purpose. This is why we can say "we may not know the future, but we know the One who holds the future in His hand." This makes sure that our faith is in God alone--come what may.

The Archangel

 

[convicted1]

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Sin entered the world through Adam. Satan's sin was in heaven.



James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.



God does not tempt or make man sin. Man sins of his own volition according to his lustful desires.




Thus sayeth the Lord.

Praise the Lord!! That is what I call a quality "breakdown" of the scriptures, Sister Amy!!!

 

[quantumfaith]

Amy,

I've got to say...wait for it...that I agree with what you've written here.

One thing way too many people try to do is to say "the devil made me do it," as if sin is something not endemic to us after the fall. The fact of the matter is this: Even as a Christian, I have many besetting sins that are still present. I fight against them. Sometimes I win, sometimes I loose, but I do fight. But this is a war with my flesh, not with a little devil perched on my shoulder whispering evil thoughts into my head. The evil that I do comes out of my heart--and it is the same for everyone after Adam and Eve sinned.

Good words, Amy. Thank you.

The Archangel

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Be sure that Luke knows I "thumbs upped" a fellow DoG brother.

 

[quantumfaith]

The problem with this is the question is hopelessly flawed. Asking this question and expecting a cut and dry answer is like asking someone to give a logical, geometrical definition of a square circle.

The fact of the matter is there is a mystery here--something we cannot fit into a neat little box. There are facts that scripture provides that lets us see there is a lot going on, and most of the mechanism we are not privy to.

I have a great deal of respect for you and how you conduct yourself in these discussions.

But....

When we non-cals use this "argument" we often get angry and often distressing responses from the DoG fellows. I do agree with the principle that there is often things we cannot answer within the theological realm, we can only speculate. A good example being "prevenient grace". Many non-cals whether they know it or not believe in some form of this grace.

 

[The Archangel]

The problem with this is the question is hopelessly flawed. Asking this question and expecting a cut and dry answer is like asking someone to give a logical, geometrical definition of a square circle.

The fact of the matter is there is a mystery here--something we cannot fit into a neat little box. There are facts that scripture provides that lets us see there is a lot going on, and most of the mechanism we are not privy to.

I have a great deal of respect for you and how you conduct yourself in these discussions.

But....

When we non-cals use this "argument" we often get angry and often distressing responses from the DoG fellows. I do agree with the principle that there is often things we cannot answer within the theological realm, we can only speculate. A good example being "prevenient grace". Many non-cals whether they know it or not believe in some form of this grace.

Not to derail this thread...but the concept of "prevenient grace" has similarities to the idea of Irresistible Grace and Common Grace, but the similarities do not run deep.

For us, the concept of prevenient grace raises many more questions than it answers. First, if all receive prevenient grace, why, then, do some reject Christ? (if prevenient grace is understood to be "regenerative" in some sense)

Second, "Common Grace" is understood to be God's grace distributed widely to both believer and non-believer (ie. rain falling on the farms of both believers and non-believers). But, there is nothing to suggest that in Common Grace there is only enough information to condemn, not to save. In situations where you have prevenient grace, assuming all have been given this grace, and no Gospel being preached (say in the 800s AD in North America) you cannot have people coming to Christ. Therefore, it seems that regenerative grace (whether irresistible grace or prevenient grace) is not applied to all persons everywhere, because, it would seem, this regenerative grace is only present where the Gospel is preached because the Gospel is required for faith in Christ. This would suggest that prevenient grace cannot be the way God chooses to do things.

So, again, not to derail the thread, it would seem that biblical facts like God's sovereignty, man's responsibility, God's ordination of evil or calamity or disaster, etc. would be more in line with the biblical information than prevenient grace. Though neither theodicy nor the concept of prevenient grace fit into a neat little box, it would seem that there is less hanging out of the box in the area of the reformed (read: orthodox--ie. not open theism) understanding of theodicy than there is in the non-reformed (read: Arminian-leaning) understanding of prevenient grace.

But, I'm perfectly OK with the idea that the Bible doesn't answer every question we might have. But, being reformed in my theology, the reformed system, I would say, invents far less and leaves one with less questions. And, I'm well aware that a non-reformed person would say exactly the opposite. That's just by $.02.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Aaron]

No, you haven't.

Yes, I have.

Actually, its a question carried over from another thread at the request of Luke. The level of its abhorrence and its shock is to help differentiate from the typical sterile theological discussion where its much easier to say something like "God decreed whatsoever comes to pass" to the more practical side of applied theology where you have to sit down across from parents who have lost their child to this type of heinous crime. It's easy to say God decreed man's rebellion when its simply eating a forbidden fruit, but when the sin involves more than fruit the theological word games cease and Calvinists duck and cover.

What "duck and cover?" The child rape scenario is an old chestnut often thrown out there by noncalvinists for its emotional appeal when they're losing the theological argument. I've heard it so many times I simply won't yield to that diversionary tactic. I responded to the basic premise of the question: the origin of sin.

There's no "applied theology" in trying to comfort grieving parents with a lie.

Tell me, what real comfort is there in your answer? That God knew their child was going to be raped and murdered, loved their child supremely and did nothing to prevent it? And worse, will most likely allow justice to be perverted by wicked magistrates?

How is he who has the power to prevent this assault, yet does nothing to prevent it less responsible for it than he who sent the molester for this purpose?

I personally know a mother whose five-year-old was kidnapped and murdered. There is a law on the books in my state named for that child. The only thing that keeps this mother's feet on the ground is the knowledge that there was divine purpose behind it.

I direct parents who grieve as such to the knowledge that God spared not His own Son when He spared not theirs. There's no ducking and covering here, bub. Just the straightforward answer to the question if it's asked. Not only did God know your child was going to to be murdered, He set the time and place and sent the murderer. Just as He did with His own Son.

I serve a sovereign God. Yours just sits back and twiddles his thumbs while unspeakable offenses are committed. He has the power to prevent it. DESIRES to prevent it, but DOESN'T.

And you think this speaks better things of your theology?

If that were the case then all those affected by that lie would be child molestors.

It's as I said. You think you're better than some sinners. You think that the sin in your heart is somehow less odious in the sight of God than that of a pedophile's. Who cares the age of the victim? I can say on the authority of the Scriptures that you have murder and adultery in your heart. You just don't think YOURS is as bad as someone else's.

Next time you hear about a child rape, go look in the mirror and say, "There but for the grace of God go I."

Clearly there was a first time for a child to be molested and killed and I asked who originated that particular thought? God or Man?

As pointed out above, that's the wrong question.

If you can't answer that question, just say so . . .

For the last time. I have answered it.

So, this is your answer? Satan made me do it? Really?

Those at a third grade reading level can tell you that wasn't my answer.

I'm done here. We'll go back and forth to the end of time. I'll say "red" and you'll hear "green." So what's the use?

One last addendum for the sake of spectators: admittedly, I have no comfort to offer grieving unbelievers. If an unbeliever asks, I'll answer, but, unless they are by God's grace open to the Gospel, the answer is unsatisfactory. God Himself has said that they have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13). There's no point in making false statements about God just to appease them.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not to derail this thread...but the concept of "prevenient grace" has similarities to the idea of Irresistible Grace and Common Grace, but the similarities do not run deep.

For us, the concept of prevenient grace raises many more questions than it answers. First, if all receive prevenient grace, why, then, do some reject Christ? (if prevenient grace is understood to be "regenerative" in some sense)

Second, "Common Grace" is understood to be God's grace distributed widely to both believer and non-believer (ie. rain falling on the farms of both believers and non-believers). But, there is nothing to suggest that in Common Grace there is only enough information to condemn, not to save. In situations where you have prevenient grace, assuming all have been given this grace, and no Gospel being preached (say in the 800s AD in North America) you cannot have people coming to Christ. Therefore, it seems that regenerative grace (whether irresistible grace or prevenient grace) is not applied to all persons everywhere, because, it would seem, this regenerative grace is only present where the Gospel is preached because the Gospel is required for faith in Christ. This would suggest that prevenient grace cannot be the way God chooses to do things.

So, again, not to derail the thread, it would seem that biblical facts like God's sovereignty, man's responsibility, God's ordination of evil or calamity or disaster, etc. would be more in line with the biblical information than prevenient grace. Though neither theodicy nor the concept of prevenient grace fit into a neat little box, it would seem that there is less hanging out of the box in the area of the reformed (read: orthodox--ie. not open theism) understanding of theodicy than there is in the non-reformed (read: Arminian-leaning) understanding of prevenient grace.

But, I'm perfectly OK with the idea that the Bible doesn't answer every question we might have. But, being reformed in my theology, the reformed system, I would say, invents far less and leaves one with less questions. And, I'm well aware that a non-reformed person would say exactly the opposite. That's just by $.02.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Thanks for you $.02. I did not mention "prevenient grace" in the context of having to do with original sin, my intent was to communicate that there are "mysteries" (for both sides) and both "assume" somethings as given, though not explicit in scripture. As for why some reject the "PG", I "speculate" it having to do with mankinds free will being permitted to reject God. I won't hijack anymore time, simply read with interest the commentary to come.

 

[webdog]

When we non-cals use this "argument" we often get angry and often distressing responses from the DoG fellows. I do agree with the principle that there is often things we cannot answer within the theological realm, we can only speculate. A good example being "prevenient grace". Many non-cals whether they know it or not believe in some form of this grace.

This is so true. When the DoG'er asks "why does one believe and the other not believe" and this kind of answer is given, there can be no mystery about it...it must be do to something (pre faith regeneration). If we can say we can know why one man chooses Christ while the other does not, the question of the OP should be similar and not a mystery.

 

[Luke2427]

In another thread we were discussing this subject and I asked this question to Luke:

Originally Posted by Skandelon


He requested we start a new thread and avoid ad homenium attacks and any uncivil or non-Christlike behavior in order to discuss this very complex and serious question. So, please feel free to chime in but keep things civil and on topic if at all possible so as not to distract from the discussion.

Thank You.

This is an excellent question and like Luther told Erasmus, ""You [i.e., Erasmus] have not worried me with extraneous issues about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like, *trifles rather than issues ... you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and have aimed for the vital spot."


You said:
Luke,

Please allow me to cut to the heart of this matter...

Before a sin like murder, molestation, torture or some other heinous crime is committed there is a temptation or a thought that comes into the mind of the criminal, right?
Now, who is the first person who thought of the heinous sin of molesting and torturing a small child? Did God originate that thought or did it originate in the mind of a sinful criminal?

1. If God, then you have to defend your position that God is not the author of evil.
2. If the criminal, then you have to defend your position that God "controls all things," because you have someone creating or originating something apart from God.




I noted you referred to temptation as one of the early stages of the origin of a sin. So let me begin by affirming that God indeed tempts no man to sin. He can neither be tempted with evil nor does he tempt any with evil.

This does not necessitate, however, that God will that evil not be.

Enter the Devil. He is a devil for sure, but he is God's devil. Job recognized this. It was most certainly Satan who afflicted Job, but Job said, "The LORD hath taken away." He also said, "Shall we receive good at the hand of the LORD and shall we not receive evil?"

Satan did it- but so did God. The affliction of Job was asymmetrical. But the deed was not morally equivalent. Satan did it for evil. God did it for good. The immediate result was bad. That was Satan's motive. The ultimate result was great good. That was God's motive.



So you asked, "Now, who is the first person who thought of the heinous sin of molesting and torturing a small child? Did God originate that thought or did it originate in the mind of a sinful criminal?"

Two things:

1. We must deal with the shock value of your question. It is filled with ethos that cannot go unchecked. I have never dealt with an Arminian who did not mention rape or child molestation in their defense of free will. It is meant to appeal to our sense of ethics. It is not logos because logos, or logic, says- if it is it is. It does not matter if we feel it is right or wrong. This kind of language you employ consists of ethos and pathos. Logos is used to get down to the bottom of a matter and see if it is true. The other two are meant to help win over hearts.

However...
The most heinous crime ever committed is not rape or child molestation as horrible as those things truly are. The most horrific sin ever committed was the torture and slaughter of the most innocent man who ever walked the earth; the brutal mutilation and murder of the only begotten Son of God.

And the Bible is clear about this sin which assuredly exceeds rape and child molestation in heinousness:

Acts 4:27-28 "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done".

God determined before hand that this the worst crime ever committed should take place. If God willed that the worst sin of all time come to pass; if he ordained before the world began that the most atrocious crime of all time should be carried out- then the argument that some make that God would not will sin or evil is MOOT.

If he willed the worst sin then he certainly could be expected to will all lesser crimes.

But God willed that this, the greatest of all evils of all time should take place for the greatest of all goods of all time- his ultimate glory and our ultimate good.

The immediate motive was that of Herod and the others. That immediate motive was evil. But God also crucified Christ. His motive was not immediate. His motive was ultimate. And his motive was of the grandest and holiest of ends.

We will bask in the glory of the Lamb who died for us and praise him forever BECAUSE God willed the most horrible sin of all time to take place.

Without evil there is no Lamb dying for me. Without evil there is no grace, no mercy for me to experience to the fullest forever. And there is no eternal praise to God for infinite grace and mercy upon sinners like me.

2. You asked where the thought originated.
This same text tells us where the thought of the worst crime of all time originated.

For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

The thought originated in eternity past in the secret council halls of the all wise, all perfect God.

But motive is the issue.

 

[Luke2427]

Definitely not. The murder of God's righteous Son is a much more heinous crime than the rape of a child. I'm not saying that one should think the rape of a child less barbaric than you feel it is, I am simply pointing out that you don't understand sin and that you don't really have the aversion to it that you should.

Sin existed before the creation of the world. Before there were children to be raped.

Aaron, you and I see eye to eye theologically as best I can tell. You seem very well read and very logically minded.

I enjoy reading your posts.

For this thread, however, let's leave off comments like "you don't understand sin and you don't really have the aversion to it you should."

It may or may not be true, but this subject matter requires every ounce of our attention and must not suffer the loss of any of it to personalities.

Let's, just for this thread, only hit the issue and leave personal pronouns out as much as possible.

 

[mets65]

We all have to agree that we have certain choices as humans. Where do those choices begin and where do those choices end?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

In another thread we were discussing this subject and I asked this question to Luke:

Originally Posted by Skandelon


He requested we start a new thread and avoid ad homenium attacks and any uncivil or non-Christlike behavior in order to discuss this very complex and serious question. So, please feel free to chime in but keep things civil and on topic if at all possible so as not to distract from the discussion.

Thank You.

Without getting to deep into this discussion—might I ask---did the act of child molestation take God by surprise? Did He not know this particular sin was going to happen? Further—was He in shock when Satan rebelled or when Eve gave the fruit to Adam & he ate?---- Did He say—“Man I never saw that coming?” If we say—yes, this took God by surprise & he never saw it coming—then we are left with open theism & a Creator who is at the mercy of his creation. But if we say no—God knew this was going to happen---We uphold His omniscience—but are left to ask—well why didn’t God just stop the event & avoid all the problems that followed? Those of the reformed persuasion would answer--- God’s motive is for the ultimate good & His ultimate glory, thus the problem of theodicy is not really a problem but a means to an end. Which to me is certainly a biblical & honestly a logical answer. But in an attempt to be open minded & see all sides to the complex issue---how exactly do those who are non-Cal or those of the non-reformed camp answer this apparent dilemma? (while I have plenty of books in front of me that give answers—I like reading the response of those on the BB who have different theological ideas than my own—b/c they often word their own ideas in a way that’s easy to understand)

 

[kyredneck]

The only sin that existed prior to the fall was the sin of Lucifer--his pride and rebellion......

Evidently glf agrees with you; from the LFW thread:

....The Serpent (or its agent, Lucifer/Satan) was the unbalancing factor. His own rebellion started the process.....

How do we know that Satan's temptation of Eve was not HIS FIRST act of rebellion?

 

[mets65]

He was cast out of heaven before he tempted her.