...Again, if God made an active predetermined choice not to save the non-elect, why then does He later reveal His desire for them to repent and live. Isn't that a direct contradiction?
Only if you presume the absence of human choice.
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!
...Again, if God made an active predetermined choice not to save the non-elect, why then does He later reveal His desire for them to repent and live. Isn't that a direct contradiction?
I'm not even focusing on man but just God Himself. Isn't it an internal inconsistency in God's nature to first pre-decree that the non-elect be condemned and then reveal His desire that they repent and live? If God had not revealed any such desire for them to repent and live, as with the non-elect angels, then it is consistent. But how can God desire in contradiction with what He has counselled in Himself earlier?Only if you presume the absence of human choice.
I'm not even focusing on man but just God Himself. Isn't it an internal inconsistency in God's nature to first pre-decree that the non-elect be condemned and then reveal His desire that they repent and live? If God had not revealed any such desire for them to repent and live, as with the non-elect angels, then it is consistent. But how can God desire in contradiction with what He has counselled in Himself earlier?
Like I said, I'm not even going there to considering how man chooses against God. My question is - Can God desire against His own choices?To the extent that he grants freedom to other determining agents who may choose differently than he desires them to.
Like I said, I'm not even going there to considering how man chooses against God.
My question is - Can God desire against His own choices?
If God makes a self-contained sovereign choice to elect some for redemption, can He then desire in Himself not to show them mercy or to not use them as a vessel of honor?
None of man's choices involved in God's initial choosing nor His later desiring - all completely within Himself. Can this be possible and consistent?
Oh, Absolutely.No, but that's not the question I've raised. The question is, can God empower another agent to chose something he desires him not to?
Agreed. I do think it's safe to explore God's revelations to the extent of what He's revealed in Scriptures. It is my belief that the Scriptures are wholly sufficient to negate any addition or subtraction by man.But even these questions are irrelevant in the grand scheme. Maybe we just can't and shouldn't expect to understand the mind of God. And maybe we should not base our theology on our own human take on the mind of God.
I was merely commenting on the hypothetical question I'd posed just prior to this statement - that there was none of man's choices involved in that question meant to conclude that God cannot desire against His own sovereign choices.This is your view, but I don't know if it's true.
Neither. I believe God foreknew there would be sin but without considering any specific sins of any particular man like Adam etc. And God reacted to this generic foreknowledge of sin with His plan of redemption through election of man - not considering any good or evil of man that God could very well foreknow but chose not to factor in His election so as to make it absolutely sovereign and impartial.For instance, do you believe God foreknew Adam would sin and reacted to it with his plan of redemption, or do you believe God determined Adam to sin?
....Neither. I believe God foreknew there would be sin but without considering any specific sins of any particular man like Adam etc.
And God reacted to this generic foreknowledge of sin with His plan of redemption through election of man - not considering any good or evil of man that God could very well foreknow but chose not to factor in His election so as to make it absolutely sovereign and impartial.
One could say God's decree to create man in the flesh in itself was a decree of God to permit the fall - but in no way being a direct causing Adam to specifically sin.
And God's foreknowledge of generic sin is based off His own nature - God knows that any creature that is not God will inevitably and eventually fall short of the glory of God.
Yep. Clarified below.Okay, so God knew Adam would sin, but did not take into account the specific sin when reacting to the sin? Am I copying you?
I mentioned it briefly. Expanding,I'm sure you have reasons for being this nuanced.
Yes and No. Adam was created good in the flesh, so No - not saying he was created in sinful flesh.So by "in the flesh" you seem to be implying Adam was created with an inevitable propensity toward sin?
Adam's fall was inevitable, yes. Unless of course God's nature was operative in him throughout as with the elect angels.So then Adam's fall was inevitable, thus Adam was created with a sin nature of sorts?
....
Adam's fall was inevitable, yes. ....
No, Adam was not created with a sin nature ...
Do you define a sinful nature as one that would inevitably sin, even before it has sinned? I don't.Which is a contradiction. Yes, I realize you've couched it with different terms, but in essence you believe Adam was created with a sin nature—a nature that would inevitably sin. You make a distinction, but it's a distinction without a difference.
And this is very close to the pelagian view. He argued that there was little difference between pre and postlapsarian Adam.
Again clarifying, in case you've defined this sin nature to be what calvinism terms a totally depraved nature. I see total depravity as a nature that cannot but sin - it continually sins.sin nature—a nature that would inevitably sin.
Do you define a sinful nature as one that would inevitably sin, even before it has sinned? I don't.
This is not even unique to me - this is what everyone who believes in the doctrine of original sin must hold to, right?You are arguing that, by nature, Adam was destined to disobey. It was natural for him to do so.
This is not even unique to me - this is what everyone who believes in the doctrine of original sin must hold to, right?
What is the alternative? Are you saying there was a scenario possible where Adam, created as he was, never sinned throughout eternity? That's not possible given 1Cor 15.
The fall will happen in any other scenario apart from the final resurrected kingdom of God where every creature is upheld perfectly in Christ (Eph 1:10).
Which is precisely why I do not hold Adam being born with a sinful nature - where I now have to qualify the nature as not having any indwelling sin at creation. This is me literally reading the Genesis account of them being created very good.Do you believe the book of Genesis as written? Do you take it literally? Maybe that's part of the problem.
I completely believe adam did have the freedom to obey God. He freely chose to disobey. I'm only saying that self-willed creatures will eventually freely choose to disobey because at some point, if not now, they will prioritize their own self-will above the Father's will under corresponding circumstances. For them to constantly freely choose to obey God forever and ever, they will have to be God.I just don't have any reason to believe that Adam did not have the freedom to obey God
Which is precisely why I do not hold Adam being born with a sinful nature...
- where I now have to qualify the nature as not having any indwelling sin at creation. This is me literally reading the Genesis account of them being created very good.
I completely believe adam did have the freedom to obey God. He freely chose to disobey. I'm only saying that self-willed creatures will eventually freely choose to disobey because at some point, if not now, they will prioritize their own self-will above the Father's will under corresponding circumstances. For them to constantly freely choose to obey God forever and ever, they will have to be God.
Which is why I keep asking you - Are you saying there was a scenario possible where Adam, created as he was, never sinned throughout eternity? It would help me understand your position if you answered this.
Again, I am not debating you in hostility - I am only trying to find the point of discord.
I do distinguish between the following -You've created a scenario where prelapsarian Adam had a penchant toward sin, but you refuse to call it a sin nature
This is the point of discord I find in your position.I don't see any reason why not. When God restores all things, we will not sin for eternity. So we know it's possible.
I do distinguish between the following -
1. a nature that is created good, but with the potential to freely sin eventually.
2. a nature that is totally depraved after falling in sin, with the continual propensity/penchant to sin
Don't you see the fact that we will not sin for eternity in the final resurrection is only because we will be conformed to the image of Christ, gathered in Him alone?
Sure. I must qualify it as inevitable only under certain circumstances.Potential means it can happen but is not inevitable.
Since I believe God will never purpose any design of creation that renders the last Adam possibly unnecessary, I cannot agree with you.Of course. But don't you see that the last Adam was only necessary, because the first Adam fell? Had the first Adam not fell, we would have lived for eternity.
Come now, you're overreaching. I thought we were having a normal discussion of beliefs and you suddenly escalate? I too believe you are grossly mistaken on the concept of freewill but I don't pronounce you accursed.You're actually distorting Genesis and with that distorting the Gospel message.
Sure. How is this relevant to what we're discussing again?BTW, what do you believe about Genesis? Do you hold to 6 days? Young earth?
Sure. I must qualify it as inevitable only under certain circumstances.
Satan was good until he saw God walking with the lesser created man and woman.
The woman was good until she was deceived.
Then again, I do acknowledge you hold that each of them could've chosen differently in those exact circumstances. That's where we'd disagree. ...
Since I believe God will never purpose any design of creation that renders the last Adam possibly unnecessary, I cannot agree with you.
Come now, you're overreaching. I thought we were having a normal discussion of beliefs and you suddenly escalate? I too believe you are grossly mistaken on the concept of freewill but I don't pronounce you accursed.
Sure. How is this relevant to what we're discussing again?