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

[Aaron]

...and/or:

14​	... Is there unrighteousness with God?... Ro 9

All the complaints against God's Sovereign Grace have their roots in these.

Precisely!

 

[Ascetic X]

kyredneck said:
...and/or:

14

... Is there unrighteousness with God?... Romans 9

All the complaints against God's Sovereign Grace have their roots in these.

Precisely!

There is no unrighteousness with God, for He does not will sin to happen.

 

[Aaron]

There is no unrighteousness with God, for He does not will sin to happen.

Arguments from foreknowledge are no shield from culpability.

In the law, one building a house was commanded to put a rail around the roof to prevent falls and the owner coming under the guilt of blood, Deuteronomy 22:8. God built Adam's house, but where was the 'rail'? God knew that a tempter would corrupt them with lie, and did nothing to keep him out. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. - James 4:17.

So it doesn't matter how you slice it, the builder's 'culpable', speaking from the point of view of the flesh, which is the only point of view from which one could charge the Potter with wrongdoing to make a vessle unto dishonour.

 

[Psalty]

Arguments from foreknowledge are no shield from culpability.

In the law, one building a house was commanded to put a rail around the roof to prevent falls and the owner coming under the guilt of blood, Deuteronomy 22:8. God built Adam's house, but where was the 'rail'? God knew that a tempter would corrupt them with lie, and did nothing to keep him out. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. - James 4:17.

So it doesn't matter how you slice it, the builder's 'culpable', speaking from the point of view of the flesh, which is the only point of view from which one could charge the Potter with wrongdoing to make a vessle unto dishonour.

Not if the builder grants will as a choice.

This is not a problem for non-calvinists. He is culpable for giving a choice.

This is a problem for a Calvinist that decrees all that comes to pass. He is culpable for causing sin.

You keep trying to say we are in the same camp as you when we have a completely different understanding of sovereignty of HOW God has chosen to act.

 

[Ascetic X]

Arguments from foreknowledge are no shield from culpability.

In the law, one building a house was commanded to put a rail around the roof to prevent falls and the owner coming under the guilt of blood, Deuteronomy 22:8. God built Adam's house, but where was the 'rail'? God knew that a tempter would corrupt them with lie, and did nothing to keep him out. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. - James 4:17.

So it doesn't matter how you slice it, the builder's 'culpable', speaking from the point of view of the flesh, which is the only point of view from which one could charge the Potter with wrongdoing to make a vessle unto dishonour.

God does not need a shield from anything.

God knew the devil would tempt Jesus in the wilderness, and did nothing to keep him out. But allowing temptation does not mean wanting sin to happen.

You now, misapplying James 4:17, accuse God of knowing that something good (preventing temptation and sin) could be done, but He did not do it, so it was a sin of omission on God’s part.

You have degenerated from saying God wanted Adam to sin, to now distinctly implying that God Himself sinned.

You keep saying culpable. Culpable means deserving blame, or responsible for wrongdoing, often used in legal contexts to indicate guilt. It describes someone at fault for an action or omission.

So you are blaming God for the wrongdoing of not putting a rail on Adam’s house, resulting in Adam sinning…and also accusing God of sinning.

I understand clearly your allegiances.

 

[percho]

I believe the plan prior to Gen 1:3 was for God to destroy the devil and the works of the devil.

Redemption out of death would be the means of bringing the plan to fruition.

God created Adam from the dust of the ground and in a manner that could bring about sin thus death.

At the completion of creation it was subjected to vanity, not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it -- in hope,


because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

 

[Aaron]

God does not need a shield from anything.

No, but your notions of God do. Leaving the door open, knowing that an evil spirit with malicious intent would enter to tempt man, knowing that man was no match for him—especially man in his innocence—makes God just as responsible for the Fall as you think His designing it does.

There's no escape from that fact. If you had an ox that was known to bore, and you make no safety precautions and it bored an innocent man, you'd be just as responsible as if you'd intended it.

You let people on your roof, and you didn't put a rail around it, and someone falls off, you're just as responsible as if you'd pushed him.

You're guilty of blood.

There's no escape.

So for you to say that God's righteousness is maintained when He acts thusly, means I can say God's righteousness is maintained when He designs one vessel for the purpose wrath, and another for the purpose of mercy. He said so Himself right there in the Bible you're reading.

Unless you're also going to charge God with negligence, then you have no alternative to conclude that even from your point of view, God had to have designed the Fall.

God knew the devil would tempt Jesus in the wilderness, and did nothing to keep him out. But allowing temptation does not mean wanting sin to happen.

What do you mean 'allow'? Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit for the sole purpose of temptation. The difference between the first and second Adams is, the first one was corruptible, and the Second Adam is not.

You obviously do not understand the Impeccability of Christ. That's a problem.

You now, misapplying James 4:17, accuse God of knowing that something good (preventing temptation and sin) could be done, but He did not do it, so it was a sin of omission on God’s part.

By your way of thinking, God can be accused. That's what I'm telling ya. Whether God was passive or active in the Fall, you cannot escape that it had to be by design.

You have degenerated from saying God wanted Adam to sin, to now distinctly implying that God Himself sinned.

By your way of thinking, that's the conclusion you must come to.

You keep saying culpable. Culpable means deserving blame, or responsible for wrongdoing, often used in legal contexts to indicate guilt. It describes someone at fault for an action or omission.

By your way of thinking.

So you are blaming God for the wrongdoing of not putting a rail on Adam’s house, resulting in Adam sinning…and also accusing God of sinning.

I understand clearly your allegiances.

I'm saying that even judging as you do, you can't escape making God guilty of sin.

I'm not accusing God of sin. The Potter has power over the clay. No matter what you think, He cannot be charged with unrighteousness to make one vessel for this purpose, and another for that one.

 

[Psalty]

No, but your notions of God do. Leaving the door open, knowing that an evil spirit with malicious intent would enter to tempt man, knowing that man was no match for him—especially man in his innocence—makes God just as responsible for the Fall as you think His designing it does.

How do you know with such confidence that Adam was no match for Satan?
Why do you assume it was Satan and not simply the desire of man for the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Why do you ignore the immediate sin after the fall where God tells Cain that Sin is crouching like a lion for him, but Cain must master it?
You should really look at what scripture says about this without asserting a Calvinist doctrine.

There's no escape from that fact. If you had an ox that was known to bore, and you make no safety precautions and it bored an innocent man, you'd be just as responsible as if you'd intended it.

You let people on your roof, and you didn't put a rail around it, and someone falls off, you're just as responsible as if you'd pushed him.

You're guilty of blood.

There's no escape.

Again, see above

So for you to say that God's righteousness is maintained when He acts thusly, means I can say God's righteousness is maintained when He designs one vessel for the purpose wrath, and another for the purpose of mercy. He said so Himself right there in the Bible you're reading.

No we are completely different.

Your scenario:
God ordains the Fall and Sin. God decrees that Man after the fall can only ever hate Him and is decreed to eternal Hell. God choses some (actually before the Fall) who will be saved by effectually changing their heart to “love” Him. The others remain under His decree of eternal hate and judgement in hell.

Our scenario:
God ordains that man can chose the Fall or not. Man choses the Fall. Even though God knows this will happen, He creates man anyway because a relationship of Love, freely chosen, is worth it in His judgment. God decrees judgment on Sin, but because He desires a loving relationship freely and not effectually chosen, He sends the power of the Gospel through the Plan of Christ to save those who believe in Christ.

Such a vast difference cannot be overstated. The problem is your view of how you think God is somehow “locked in” to decreeing the Fall.

Unless you're also going to charge God with negligence, then you have no alternative to conclude that even from your point of view, God had to have designed the Fall.

See above.

What do you mean 'allow'? Jesus was led into the wilderness by the Spirit for the sole purpose of temptation. The difference between the first and second Adams is, the first one was corruptible, and the Second Adam is not.

Then how do you understand the bible when it says in Hebrews 4:15 that He was tempted, yet without sin? If you dont believe that He could actually sin? How do you understand that we have a High Priest who can empathize with our temptations? Edit for scripture:

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
— Hebrews 4:15

It sound like you dont believe that He was actually 100% man. Do you believe that Jesus had the nature of a man or not and was tempted in all things as we are??
How do you believe that Jesus got around inheriting the sin of Adam since He was born of Mary, since you believe in Total Depravity (assuming you believe this as a Calvinist).

You obviously do not understand the Impeccability of Christ. That's a problem.



By your way of thinking, God can be accused. That's what I'm telling ya. Whether God was passive or active in the Fall, you cannot escape that it had to be by design.


By your way of thinking, that's the conclusion you must come to.



By your way of thinking.

Again, see above.

I'm saying that even judging as you do, you can't escape making God guilty of sin.

I'm not accusing God of sin. The Potter has power over the clay. No matter what you think, He cannot be charged with unrighteousness to make one vessel for this purpose, and another for that one.

And here is where you are grossly mistaken. The question is not whether the Potter has the right to do what He please, the question is what is the Nature of the Potter, and WHY does He fashion into Judgement or not. You believe that the Potter determines before the foundation of the world. On the other hand, the Potter says of Himself that He fashions according to the decision of men to repent and turn to God or not.

As He says in Jeremiah 18:

“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’
— Jeremiah 18:6-11