Cause verses Allows

[swaimj]

Let me ask you swaimj, How did Adam learn of God's good?

Everything that God made was good. Except, when God saw that Adam had no one who corresponded to him, God said it was "not good". Then God made the woman and gave her to Adam. When Adam saw Eve, he knew what "good" was, without a doubt!

 

[steaver]

Adam's sin may have been paid for, but the majority of people born from him are either not paid for, or were paid for, but simply didn't have the payment applied to them, depending on which of the views one takes. The even "harder" part (as often gloated about by Calvinists) is that it was God who deliberately did this, just to save a relative few; AND, then pulled some sort of legal switcheroo, where sin was made their "fault" and not His (I still wonder why you even bother denying Calvinism. Just because of the "will"? Many Calvinists here still believe in human will; yet nevertheless affirm that those who do not exercise it toward God are the "vessels of wrath", just as you affirm). Calvinists will point out that the only other alternative to their view is that God is sitting by helplessy waiting for all these free wills to choose Him, and is basically losing out. Hence, the only way to glorify God's sovereignty is to make it His deliberate choice regarding who is saved and damned, and also that sin would be created in the first place by Him, yet, Him being blameless. And you seem to be taking this latter route, yet trying to get around the unavoidable resultant double-predestination.

I disagree with Calvin on these points you listed (if this is what Calvin taught). I don't want to debate Calvinism in this thread.

It's been hard for me to bring up this point, because I don't want to make it look like I'm questioning the effectiveness and perfection of the plan because of how many are lost. But you're basing your claim of its perfection on your being saved and experiencing mercy.

The only bases I make for the plan being perfect is the fact that it is God's plan and the plan has gone exactly as God knew it would.

(But then, we get into the whole OSAS debate, and the notion thatif a person doesn't persever to the end, he wasn't really saved, and the notion that God in His sovereignty could deceive a reprobate into thinking he's saved which is a logical extension of the rest of this; hence, whether you've really received "mercy" to begin with is not even 100% certain!)

I don't want to debate OSAS here. I'm taking a break from those threads.

So it's one thing to be thankful to have received mercy, but quite another to claim God deliberately condemned millions of others just so you could be saved,....

Stay on point brother. In over ten pages there has not been one post of anyone nor I claiming any such thing. Your got Calvinism on your forethoughts. Forget Calvin for awhile and just focus on the points made.

These types of questions are the sorts of things Paul told us to avoid as senseless distractions.

Does this mean you are sinning by participating here? Would the threads on OSAS, Rapture timing, Sin Nature, Easter, Christmas, Do you have to believe that Jesus is the second Person, America in bible prophecy, etc, etc also be included in Paul's "senseless distractions"?

You're proposing this "hard" point (in what is supposed to be good news), and trying to force everyone to see that it's "just true" through inductive reasoning.

So far I have read nothing but compliants from you. Where are your facts that disprove the facts that I have put forth in my "inductive reasoning"? This is a debate. Don't just keep saying "your this" and your doing that". Put forth some sort of constructive refute.

The perfection of the plan does not rest in God damning a majority of man just so relative few could be saved. There is something more to it that we do not know. So it's a waste of time to make these assertions.

Dear brother, you got Calvin on the brain. I have never asserted any such thing. You have to forget about Calvin and deal with what I have actually been saying.

I never argued this, and never really thought much on it. I figured that there was obviously something that was lost in the Fall. If nothing more than an innocense. Just compare: before, they walked together, and after, they hid, and God banished them.

There is no account of them "walking together" nor "intimacy". None! In fact, God said it was not good for Adam to be "alone". I would think that if one had this intimate blessed relationship with God they surely would not feel alone and God would not say it was not good to be alone.

Thanks for paticipating brother, but I have limited time to post so in the future if you could stay on what I have said and forget about your Calvinism issues it would be greatly appreciated. I addressed your points this time on Calvin but in the future if your post isn't on what I have said then I won't be able to reply.

God bless you, and I want your input, but you have to stick with the topic.

:thumbsup:

 

[steaver]

God did not set Adam up for failure. Adam had every advantage not to sin. Whereas you and I were conceived in iniquity, as David wrote, Adam was created without a sin nature. He had no predisposition to sin. He was good and very good. God gave him one commandment, and a simple one at that. God expected him to keep it, and had every expectation to do so. After all, Adam should have kept it. Adam failed, but God didn't set him up to fail.
.

Why did God place the forbidden fruit in Adam's reach KNOWING Adam would take it and eat?

 

[steaver]

Most people, including myself, think that knowing good and evil means knowing the distinction and being acquainted wiht evil, because if one does not know evil, one does not know the distinction and is not familiar with evil. .

That would be a huge change to what the scripture actually says. It speaks nothing of any "distinction". I know that is a favorite way of dismissing the text, but I'm afraid that is doing a huge disservice to God's word. I checked numerious translations and no scholars felt a need to add "distinction" to the text.

I checked out that website you gave and it really didn't show any proof for adding the thought of "distinction" to the text, it just basically gave an opinion. Good commentary gives scripture to support the view. What scripture or Hebrew context can you provide to prove that "distinction" should be the context? I'm open to learn. That site you gave didn't say much of anything.

Most people, including myself, think that knowing good and evil means knowing the distinction and being acquainted wiht evil, because if one does not know evil, one does not know the distinction and is not familiar with evil.

You would have to agree with me then that Adam could not know mercy until he learned evil. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[steaver]

Everything that God made was good. Except, when God saw that Adam had no one who corresponded to him, God said it was "not good". Then God made the woman and gave her to Adam. When Adam saw Eve, he knew what "good" was, without a doubt!

The scripture says "knowledge of good and evil". In this phrase, the "good" spoken of must be in contrast to "evil". Adam would know "good" food or any other thing that was "good" to his God given senses. The phrase is not speaking of what God "made".

So when I ask you "How did Adam learn of God's good?" it is in the context of "good verses evil" and not as in "good food" or something like that.

The scripture is clear, Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, "good" being the opposite of evil or "good" being God's good attributes.

So please answer, How did Adam learn of God's good?

 

[Marcia]

That would be a huge change to what the scripture actually says. It speaks nothing of any "distinction". I know that is a favorite way of dismissing the text, but I'm afraid that is doing a huge disservice to God's word. I checked numerious translations and no scholars felt a need to add "distinction" to the text.

I checked out that website you gave and it really didn't show any proof for adding the thought of "distinction" to the text, it just basically gave an opinion. Good commentary gives scripture to support the view. What scripture or Hebrew context can you provide to prove that "distinction" should be the context? I'm open to learn. That site you gave didn't say much of anything.



You would have to agree with me then that Adam could not know mercy until he learned evil. :smilewinkgrin:

Adam already knew right and wrong but he had not experienced evil until he disobeyed God. "Knowing" good and evil means a firsthand experience, but putting them together indicates knowing good and evil distinctly. I learned this in seminary from my OT professor who also teaches Hebrew. The word "to know" is important here. It is like a man knowing his wife - it's not just head knowledge but experiencing something.

Until Adam disobeyed, he did not "know" good and evil. He did know good because all was good before the Fall; God said it was. So we know it was. Knowing evil made Adam now familiar with good and evil, and therefore, good from evil (a distinction). I know the word is not in the text, but using reasoning and going by the text does allows us to draw certain conclusions. I realize this is not absolute truth and I'm not claiming it is.

No, I don't agree one has to know evil to know mercy. I've already been through that.

 

[Eric B]

I disagree with Calvin on these points you listed (if this is what Calvin taught). I don't want to debate Calvinism in this thread.

The only bases I make for the plan being perfect is the fact that it is God's plan and the plan has gone exactly as God knew it would.

I don't want to debate OSAS here. I'm taking a break from those threads.

Stay on point brother. In over ten pages there has not been one post of anyone nor I claiming any such thing. Your got Calvinism on your forethoughts. Forget Calvin for awhile and just focus on the points made.

Does this mean you are sinning by participating here? Would the threads on OSAS, Rapture timing, Sin Nature, Easter, Christmas, Do you have to believe that Jesus is the second Person, America in bible prophecy, etc, etc also be included in Paul's "senseless distractions"?

So far I have read nothing but compliants from you. Where are your facts that disprove the facts that I have put forth in my "inductive reasoning"? This is a debate. Don't just keep saying "your this" and your doing that". Put forth some sort of constructive refute.

Dear brother, you got Calvin on the brain. I have never asserted any such thing. You have to forget about Calvin and deal with what I have actually been saying.

There is no account of them "walking together" nor "intimacy". None! In fact, God said it was not good for Adam to be "alone". I would think that if one had this intimate blessed relationship with God they surely would not feel alone and God would not say it was not good to be alone.

Thanks for paticipating brother, but I have limited time to post so in the future if you could stay on what I have said and forget about your Calvinism issues it would be greatly appreciated. I addressed your points this time on Calvin but in the future if your post isn't on what I have said then I won't be able to reply.

God bless you, and I want your input, but you have to stick with the topic.

I'm sorry; but you're making the same kind of argument as the Calvinists, and just like them, there is no answer for your questions.

You're making an argument that God caused Adam to fail (which also leads to millions being lost), and that it's some "hard doctrine" no one else can swallow, and because no body can take any "facts" to disprove it, then you presume to "win" by default. Problem is, the bible does not build the isolated "facts" you are taking into a pronouncement that God caused Adam to fail, or that this was absolutely necessary for him to experience mercy. You're basically building an argument from silence; that you can make an assertion out of the blue, and because there's nothing that outright disproves it, then, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Just like the CoC'ers with their instrument ban. We can't find any scripture saying otherwise; so the assertion must stand.

This IS the type of "distraction" Paul warned about. Some of those other debates you mentioned would also fall into this category. (and this is why I have moved away from some of this stuff, and after taking an entire year break from all of it). Some others like the "Second Person" issue is a more legitimate question (and one that has not been rehashed over and over).

What is the purpose of posing some question that you know no one can answer? That leads to nothing but senseless strife. When Paul wrote, people were having endless disputes about geneaologies and such, that had no real answer (hence, "endless"), really had nothing to do with the message of Christ, and could do nothing more than exalt the person who proves his point. (They could claim it glorified God, since God is the one who raised the people!)

So again, there is no answer to your question, and no "facts" in opposition, except for the gross contradiction that you have God causing sin, and yet blaming those He caused to sin ("set up to fail") for it. The Bible does not address such a question (And Romans 9 is not talking about Adam and all of mankind; it's talking about Israel, with Pharaoh as an example), so there is no answer to it that can be gotten from scripture, excetpt to point out the ones on God's character, such as "no variableness nor shadow of turning" (James 1:17, in the context of God not tempting anyone with evil, v.13). But all you're going to do is find a way around that somehow.

 

[RAdam]

Why did God place the forbidden fruit in Adam's reach KNOWING Adam would take it and eat?

Ok, let me ask you a question. Have you ever told your kids not to do something, like not to get a cookie out of the cookie jar, but you left the cookie jar within their reach. Why did you do that? Why not remove it from their reach, that way they won't be tempted? That's really the same thing you are saying God should have done. He shouldn't have put that tree there, because it was a sense of temptation. The bottom line is we should be able to resist temptations. God expected Adam to obey His command and resist temptation. God didn't put that tree there so Adam would sin, or to test him. God put that tree there because He wanted to. Why does the parent leave the cookie jar out? I mean, the kid might go grab a cookie, disobeying the parent. You see, it should be reasonable for the parent to expect the child to be obedient. It was perfectly reasonable for God to expect Adam to obey.

God didn't set Adam up to fail. Adam chose to willingly disobey God.

 

[steaver]

Adam already knew right and wrong but he had not experienced evil until he disobeyed God. "Knowing" good and evil means a firsthand experience, but putting them together indicates knowing good and evil distinctly. I learned this in seminary from my OT professor who also teaches Hebrew. The word "to know" is important here. It is like a man knowing his wife - it's not just head knowledge but experiencing something.

Until Adam disobeyed, he did not "know" good and evil. He did know good because all was good before the Fall; God said it was. So we know it was. Knowing evil made Adam now familiar with good and evil, and therefore, good from evil (a distinction). I know the word is not in the text, but using reasoning and going by the text does allows us to draw certain conclusions. I realize this is not absolute truth and I'm not claiming it is.
.

Actually, the way I read your analysis, we are pretty much saying the same thing.

You say ""Knowing" good and evil means a firsthand experience, but putting them together indicates knowing good and evil distinctly".

I have to agree with this statement. Both are true. Adam had no first hand experience of good or evil. Of course this is "good" in the contrast to evil as I had said, and it is not a kind of "good" like a "good food" or the "cool breeze is good" or the "warm sun is good". The only way to understand what is meant here by "good" is to place it up against what is "evil". So it would be morals that is in focus when it says "good and evil".

So you say it is a distinction, and I see now that you are correct. I said it was a "contrast" , same thing so we agree. However, this does not change the fact that Adam had no "knowledge of good and evil" or even a "distinction of good and evil".

"Knowing" good and evil means a firsthand experience

Correct, but what you want to do is to drop the "good" part and only accept the "evil" part. You want to say Adam knew (Hebrew "to know") "good" but did not know "evil". But the text says Adam did not know either "good and evil". And even using the "distinction" context, Adam still did not "know" (Hebrew context) what "good and evil" was.

The word "to know" is important here.

Agreed. And "to know" is in front of the "good" just as it is in front of the "evil". God told Adam what the tree was for. It was for the knowledge of good and evil, not just for learning the evil part. So Adam had the head knowledge of the tree, he simply did not have the "to know" part.

It is like a man knowing his wife - it's not just head knowledge but experiencing something.

It's like when God gave Adam all the food and said it is "good". Adam then had head knowledge from God that it was "good", BUT Adam had to experience the food before he understood! God could have told Adam that He was "good" (morally) but Adam would have no idea until he experienced it! Therefore, even if God told Adam that He was good (morally), Adam could not "to know" (as the Hebrew expresses it as you said) unless Adam experienced it.

So my point remains valid even by the definition of "to know". We actually agree on this much. We both agree that Adam could not have "known" anything without experiencing it. So how would Adam "know" God's mercy?

Until Adam disobeyed, he did not "know" good and evil. He did know good because all was good before the Fall; God said it was.

You are mixing together different kinds of "good". God said everything He made was "good". This is material stuff. The "good" refered to in the verse "knowldge of good and evil" is not speaking of stuff. It is speaking of the distinction between God's goodness and evil. Surely you can see this difference between good stuff and good morals?

Knowing evil made Adam now familiar with good and evil, and therefore, good from evil (a distinction). I know the word is not in the text, but using reasoning and going by the text does allows us to draw certain conclusions. I realize this is not absolute truth and I'm not claiming it is.

Actually the text says "knowing good and evil" not just knowing evil. And you are right that "therefore, good from evil (a distinction). Your right, the word is not in the text but by using inductive reasoning and going by the text does allow us to draw certain conclusions. I believe that it is the truth and we should proclaim it!

Thanks for the engagement sister! I believe we are getting closer to agreement than what you think. And it is for the glory of God's word, that we may know Him and understand His mercy,grace and love. :thumbs:

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

I'm sorry; but you're making the same kind of argument as the Calvinists, and just like them, there is no answer for your questions.

I believe all my questions have answers.

You're making an argument that God caused Adam to fail (which also leads to millions being lost),

This goes back to the OP "Cause verses Allows". Is there really a difference?

It only leads to millions being lost because those millions have rejected salvation from their condition. That's not God's fault. God provided an atonement.

and that it's some "hard doctrine" no one else can swallow, and because no body can take any "facts" to disprove it, then you presume to "win" by default. Problem is, the bible does not build the isolated "facts" you are taking into a pronouncement that God caused Adam to fail, or that this was absolutely necessary for him to experience mercy. You're basically building an argument from silence; that you can make an assertion out of the blue, and because there's nothing that outright disproves it, then, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Just like the CoC'ers with their instrument ban. We can't find any scripture saying otherwise; so the assertion must stand.

Don't you see what you are doing brother? Your just saying "it isn't so"! Take the scriptures from Genesis 1-3 that I have been focused on and give your alternate view like Marcia and swaimj has been. Your just basically complaining.

This IS the type of "distraction" Paul warned about. Some of those other debates you mentioned would also fall into this category. (and this is why I have moved away from some of this stuff, and after taking an entire year break from all of it). Some others like the "Second Person" issue is a more legitimate question (and one that has not been rehashed over and over).

I have to disagree with you brother. This topic is dealing with the absolute sovereignty of God and His plan for His purposes, and if fully understood, causes the believer to deeply honour and value just how magnificient are His ways and His love above our ways and our thoughts of love.

What is the purpose of posing some question that you know no one can answer? That leads to nothing but senseless strife. When Paul wrote, people were having endless disputes about geneaologies and such, that had no real answer (hence, "endless"), really had nothing to do with the message of Christ, and could do nothing more than exalt the person who proves his point. (They could claim it glorified God, since God is the one who raised the people!)

I think your misappying that scripture to this topic. I don't find it has any correlation to this discussion.

So again, there is no answer to your question, and no "facts" in opposition, except for the gross contradiction that you have God causing sin, and yet blaming those He caused to sin ("set up to fail") for it. The Bible does not address such a question (And Romans 9 is not talking about Adam and all of mankind; it's talking about Israel, with Pharaoh as an example), so there is no answer to it that can be gotten from scripture, excetpt to point out the ones on God's character, such as "no variableness nor shadow of turning" (James 1:17, in the context of God not tempting anyone with evil, v.13). But all you're going to do is find a way around that somehow.

Again that takes us back to the OP, "Cause verses Allows". We know that God "allowed" Adam to sin because God placed Adam in reach of sin KNOWING full well that Adam would indeed sin. Is there an answer? You say no. I believe the answer is given us all throughout the scriptures and not just in Romans 9.

Has Jesus Christ and God been glorified by Adam's sin? Think about it.

:wavey:

 

[steaver]

Ok, let me ask you a question. Have you ever told your kids not to do something, like not to get a cookie out of the cookie jar, but you left the cookie jar within their reach. Why did you do that? Why not remove it from their reach, that way they won't be tempted? That's really the same thing you are saying God should have done. He shouldn't have put that tree there, because it was a sense of temptation. The bottom line is we should be able to resist temptations. God expected Adam to obey His command and resist temptation. God didn't put that tree there so Adam would sin, or to test him. God put that tree there because He wanted to. Why does the parent leave the cookie jar out? I mean, the kid might go grab a cookie, disobeying the parent. You see, it should be reasonable for the parent to expect the child to be obedient. It was perfectly reasonable for God to expect Adam to obey.

God didn't set Adam up to fail. Adam chose to willingly disobey God.

Good questions brother :thumbs: This is what I like, let's kick this around and see if we can both come closer together and closer to God!

Ok, let me ask you a question. Have you ever told your kids not to do something, like not to get a cookie out of the cookie jar, but you left the cookie jar within their reach. Why did you do that?

I need more information;

Did I give the child a warning of consequences for disobeying?
Does the child know and understand the consequences for disobeying?
Did I know as God knows whether or not my child would disobey?

If we are relating this example to God and Adam then I must assume that I know for certain whether or not my child is going to obey my command.

Why not remove it from their reach, that way they won't be tempted? That's really the same thing you are saying God should have done.

Not me, I believe God's plan is perfect, I don't believe God should not have allowed Adam to sin. It was good for God to place the tree in Adam's reach (Good because it is God's plan). So what "good" came from it?

Isn't the answer Jesus Christ is glorified and we are able "to know"(Hebrew "to know") God.

The bottom line is we should be able to resist temptations. God expected Adam to obey His command and resist temptation. God didn't put that tree there so Adam would sin, or to test him. God put that tree there because He wanted to.

You say "God expected Adam to obey", yet God "knew" Adam would not obey. Please elaborate.

Why does the parent leave the cookie jar out? I mean, the kid might go grab a cookie, disobeying the parent. You see, it should be reasonable for the parent to expect the child to be obedient. It was perfectly reasonable for God to expect Adam to obey.

But God knew Adam would disobey So why didn't God just keep Adam from the tree or not place him in reach of it to begin with? If I know my child well and know my child will not be able to resist the cookie in the cookie jar then I myself am going to remove the jar from the childs reach. But, does this teach the child anything?

Or, maybe I will let the jar in the childs reach as to teach the child a lesson!

Here is the problem with human reasoning. We don't know all things as God does BEFORE they happen! Placing foreknowledge into the equasion changes the entire scenario. Think about it.

:jesus:

 

[RAdam]

God knew that you and I wouldn't keep His law perfectly, yet He still gave it to us, and He chastens us when we break it. Why? Because God expects us to keep it. He knew we wouldn't, but He still expected it.

God knew that Saul was going to break His commandments in 1 Samuel 15 when He sent him to attack the amalekites, yet He still gave Saul the commands and punished Saul for breaking them. God's foreknowledge of events didn't alter the way God approached that scenario. God didn't want Saul to do what he did.

 

[steaver]

God knew that you and I wouldn't keep His law perfectly, yet He still gave it to us, and He chastens us when we break it. Why? Because God expects us to keep it. He knew we wouldn't, but He still expected it.

.

That's not the answer brother. God knew we could not keep the law either, just like He knew Adam could not keep HIs command to not eat of the knowledge of good and evil.

Perfectly keep the law? We break every commandment.

Romans 5 teaches us why the law entered;

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

You see? Jesus Christ is glorified! :jesus:

The law is to show us our condemnation and our need for Jesus Christ.

 

[webdog]

May I ask, who planned the crucifixion of Jesus?

The Jews?
Pilate?
Satan?
God?

:godisgood:

All of the above.

 

[RAdam]

I'm not talking about the Mosaic Law, I'm talking about God's moral law. God expects me not to cheat on my wife, though all around me are temptations. If I did fall to the temptations, God is going to chasten me. Why? Because He expected me not to do it.

 

[Marcia]

Actually, the way I read your analysis, we are pretty much saying the same thing.

You say ""Knowing" good and evil means a firsthand experience, but putting them together indicates knowing good and evil distinctly".

I have to agree with this statement. Both are true. Adam had no first hand experience of good or evil. Of course this is "good" in the contrast to evil as I had said, and it is not a kind of "good" like a "good food" or the "cool breeze is good" or the "warm sun is good". The only way to understand what is meant here by "good" is to place it up against what is "evil". So it would be morals that is in focus when it says "good and evil".

...Correct, but what you want to do is to drop the "good" part and only accept the "evil" part. You want to say Adam knew (Hebrew "to know") "good" but did not know "evil". But the text says Adam did not know either "good and evil". And even using the "distinction" context, Adam still did not "know" (Hebrew context) what "good and evil" was.


Agreed. And "to know" is in front of the "good" just as it is in front of the "evil". God told Adam what the tree was for. It was for the knowledge of good and evil, not just for learning the evil part. So Adam had the head knowledge of the tree, he simply did not have the "to know" part.



It's like when God gave Adam all the food and said it is "good". Adam then had head knowledge from God that it was "good", BUT Adam had to experience the food before he understood! God could have told Adam that He was "good" (morally) but Adam would have no idea until he experienced it! Therefore, even if God told Adam that He was good (morally), Adam could not "to know" (as the Hebrew expresses it as you said) unless Adam experienced it.

Steaver, remember that this knowing good and evil came from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So there is a reason that it is called "the knowledge of good and evil." This does not mean or imply in any way that one had to eat from this tree to know good. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have had to disobey God to know good. I see nothing in the text or in the character of God to support such a view.

Some think that the use of "good and evil" together is what is called a merism - it is taking two things to mean one - like saying "it's raining cats and dogs," or "For example, in Genesis 1:1, when God creates the heavens and the earth (KJV), the two parts combine to indicate that God created the whole universe. Similarly, in Psalm 139, the psalmist declares that God knows my downsitting and mine uprising; indicating that God knows all that he does" (look up Merism in Wikipedia).

So the meaning is not that Adam had to sin to know good, but to "know good and evil" which is another thing altogether.

There is nothing to support your view that Adam did not know God was good until he sinned. This is just your view. Essentially, you are trying to make it seem like sin was necessary for man to know God, and I see nothing in the bible to support this view.

I have to say that this is what Wiccans and others say - you can't know love without hate, dark without light, good without evil, sweet without bitter, etc. I reject that view completely for many reasons, mostly because it is not a biblical worldview.

 

[Eric B]

I believe all my questions have answers.

But they raise other questions which you can't answer (like how God can cause sin yet not be to blame).

It only leads to millions being lost because those millions have rejected salvation from their condition. That's not God's fault. God provided an atonement.

But by setting their progenitor up to fail, He then placed them into the situation where they have hearts that do not want Him, plus all the other conditions such as simply never hearing of Christ.

Don't you see what you are doing brother? Your just saying "it isn't so"! Take the scriptures from Genesis 1-3 that I have been focused on and give your alternate view like Marcia and swaimj has been. Your just basically complaining.

Gen. 1-3 doesn't say God caused Adam to fail, or that this was absolutely necessary for him to experience mercy or for God to be glorified.

I have to disagree with you brother. This topic is dealing with the absolute sovereignty of God and His plan for His purposes, and if fully understood, causes the believer to deeply honour and value just how magnificient are His ways and His love above our ways and our thoughts of love.

I think your misappying that scripture to this topic. I don't find it has any correlation to this discussion.

Yes it does, as those arguing over geneologies could say it was God's sovereignty for choosing their line as special, or whatever, and thus "cause the believer to deeply honour and value just how magnificient are His ways and His love above our ways and our thoughts of love".

Again that takes us back to the OP, "Cause verses Allows". We know that God "allowed" Adam to sin because God placed Adam in reach of sin KNOWING full well that Adam would indeed sin. Is there an answer? You say no. I believe the answer is given us all throughout the scriptures and not just in Romans 9.

Has Jesus Christ and God been glorified by Adam's sin? Think about it.

You're looking at an end result, or an accomodation to what was always seen as a bad occurrence that God worked out for goo, and claiming the occurrence itself was therefore part of the good.

 

[swaimj]

The scripture says "knowledge of good and evil". In this phrase, the "good" spoken of must be in contrast to "evil". Adam would know "good" food or any other thing that was "good" to his God given senses. The phrase is not speaking of what God "made".

So when I ask you "How did Adam learn of God's good?" it is in the context of "good verses evil" and not as in "good food" or something like that.

The scripture is clear, Adam had no knowledge of good and evil, "good" being the opposite of evil or "good" being God's good attributes.

So please answer, How did Adam learn of God's good?

I think you are mistakenly limiting the "good" that existed prior to the fall to aesthetic things.

Here's the irony of your argument: Calvinists insist that man is totally unable to know God, desire God, seek God, etc. because of the fall. I don't want to get into that debate here (or anywhere else ). Your argument is that Adam was spiritually dead PRIOR to the fall because Adam had no fellowship with God nor any concept of moral goodness (or badness) prior to his sinning. Since God had told Adam not to eat of the tree, he DID have some concept of the possibility of disobeying prior to the fall.

I maintain that Adam had PERFECT fellowship with God prior to the fall, and now that I think about it, he also had perfect fellowship with his wife--mentally, emotionally, physically, and spiritually--prior to the fall. I'd say that Adam was perfect and holy in his spiritual life prior to the fall. That's a superior state to the state that we live in today. However, it is a state that we hope for, by God's grace in eternity. In both of those superior states, sin is absent. So, I think for you to argue that sin in essential in order for us to know God fully is mistaken.

Oh, and one more thing that came to my over the weekend. You argue that God's plan is perfect, therefore everything that occurs is perfect, including sin. However, I can think of two sins that Jesus spoke of; of which he said it would have been better if they had not occurred. One, Jesus said, before Judas departed to betray him, it would have been better that Judas had not been born, than to do what he was about to do. Two, Jesus said that it is inevitable that some would offend "little ones" but that for the offender, it would be better for them if a millstone were tied around their neck and they were cast into the sea. So, if God's plan is perfect in the sense that even sins that occur are perfect, how can Jesus say that "it would have been better" if an alternative to what actually occurred had occurred?

BTW, I appreciate Steaver raising these questions and I have enjoyed the interactions from other members on the board.

 

[webdog]

Oh, and one more thing that came to my over the weekend. You argue that God's plan is perfect, therefore everything that occurs is perfect, including sin. However, I can think of two sins that Jesus spoke of; of which he said it would have been better if they had not occurred. One, Jesus said, before Judas departed to betray him, it would have been better that Judas had not been born, than to do what he was about to do. Two, Jesus said that it is inevitable that some would offend "little ones" but that for the offender, it would be better for them if a millstone were tied around their neck and they were cast into the sea. So, if God's plan is perfect in the sense that even sins that occur are perfect, how can Jesus say that "it would have been better" if an alternative to what actually occurred had occurred?

Great questions!

 

[steaver]

All of the above.

Good answer :thumbs:

And whom is in charge?

Sovereignty!

:jesus: