Precisely!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus Christ - God Incarnate - Lamb of God ... ALWAYS the plan, or just a patch after the fall?
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
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.
There is no unrighteousness with God, for He does not will sin to happen.
...and/or:
14
... Is there unrighteousness with God?... Romans 9
All the complaints against God's Sovereign Grace have their roots in these.
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
Active Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
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;
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;
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.
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.
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.
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
Active Member
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.
Again, see above
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.
See above.
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:
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).
Again, see above.
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:
Last edited:
God decreed that His Son would be a priest and be highly exalted. The world was created for just that purpose. The world was created for the Cross.
God begins with His Son.
God begins with you.
Agreed.
...some of your arguments?
Because I try to be brief and focus on the key points...the points from which one reasons and shapes his conclusions.
One thing you have to do is to pay attention to what the scriptures say. They don't say He can empathize with our temptations. They say He can empathize with our weaknesses; hunger, fatigue, dependence, etc.
Temptation and sin are not the same things. You're confusing your desire to sin with temptation itself, and you project that desire onto the Person of Christ.
Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God saith, 'Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
Exactly how was she his helper? What did she help him do? Why was Adam created and why was the woman taken from him?
for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. 1 Tim 2:15-18
What did she help him do and exactly how would she be his helper.
Looks like a plan, to me.
Exactly how was she his helper? What did she help him do? Why was Adam created and why was the woman taken from him?
for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. 1 Tim 2:15-18
What did she help him do and exactly how would she be his helper.
Looks like a plan, to me.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
Yes, Eve was planned by God to be a suitable helper for Adam.
You ask a great question — in what ways did Eve help Adam?
Here are some ways, based on scripture and my experience with a godly wife.
1. Eve helped Adam steward the earth and tend the garden.
2. Eve helped Adam obey God’s command to replenish the earth with children, and raise a family.
3. Eve helped Adam to not feel lonely, by being a fit companion, better than all other creatures.
4. Eve helped Adam enjoy being alive.
5. Eve helped Adam understand himself.
6. Eve helped Adam prepare meals.
7. Eve helped Adam learn how to interact with another person.
Psalty
Active Member
So you skip where the conversation has build to and run back to your main point that has literally been shown to be answered other ways. You think that repeating it at this point helps your case? You just let it die when you refuse to answer the objects… you cant answer. Your calvinism fails.
You ignore all the scripture that is point by point refuting your Calvinism and your argument up to this point. I understand, calvinists typically run away when it comes down to scripture and context… they simply cant address the points… because calvinism doesnt hold to scripture.
Lets just let the scripture speak:
The scripture says He was tempted in all things just as we are. According to how you define it, you make the definition of “temptation” mean nothing. Scripture says tempted in all thing as we are. But according to you, it wasnt tempted as we are at all, He couldnt even sin.
It is clear from dodging of all of the previous questions, scripture, and issue of inheriting a human nature through Mary, the potter, etc etc, that you arent actually interested in establishing truth. Clearly you dont really care, you just dont want to actually talk about the calvinist God who decrees sin. Youve said several times you dont walk to talk about the garden. Anything but that!
Thats ok, at least you have shown that you dont have scriptural answers and you have a God who decrees sin and hates many/majority of His children. Just like every Calvinist, as soon as it gets down to scripture, and you realize it conflicts with your Calvinism, you must retreat and skip or talk about something else. You have left much unanswered and must run away or try to redirect. You cant answer scripture and directly contradict it.
As was said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail “Run away! Run away!”
LOL. What do you mean "skip"?
You presume the former. The Scriptures say the latter.
Look it up for yourself.
Psalty
Active Member
I quoted it for you. Scripture stands against you. Continue to deny… He was tempted IN ALL THINGS JUST LIKE US. Its not a hard concept.
Psalty
Active Member
Herein lies the problem with every Calvinist Ive met. As soon as arguments get specific and scriptural, they default back to the original claim because they cant carry how their view fails on every scriptural level.
In this thread, You, Martin, AP. You all refuse to keep going on the scriptural arguments and cannot defend your interpretation… because when pointed out, you all know they fail.
No, I wont go back to your original claim and start arguing from the beginning again. Answer the post, if you can.