The Origin of Sin--PART III

[Skandelon]

There is no point in going further.

You do not see Edwards' clear meaning.

You are determined to make it all about permission when it clearly is not.

Luke, I'm not making it all about permission. I have affirmed your statement regarding how God has disposed events and ordered things so that they will certainly come to pass. I even affirmed it when you wrote, "God ordained that the event should come to pass in eternity past. By ordain I mean that he planned it, intended for it to come to pass, actively organized the universe so that it most certainly WOULD come to pass because he had a divine purpose for the event."

God CANNOT do a wicked thing. He can DO the same thing that the man is doing- he DOES- Scripture is VERY plain. But his MOTIVE is pure. It is focused upon an ultimate glorious outcome whereas the man doing the thing does it for wicked purposes and for an immediate and evil outcome.

In the same sentence you say that God cannot do a wicked thing on the one hand, and on the the other you say God is doing wicked but his MOTIVE is pure. Which is it.

Its either:

1. God does wicked with the a good motive

Or

2. God doesn't do wicked, period.

It's not both. Notice, Edwards NEVER says this. He never attempts to say God is the doer of evil, but his motive is good so its ok. Can you point to where He ever says that?

God CANNOT DO a wicked thing- because he cannot have evil as a motive.

What you are not getting, is that God AND man are doing the same things.

And what you are not getting is that the very motive of man is determined by God in your system so this distinction is meaningless.

My question is not about the act of sin, its about the motive or intent of man. That intent is an event. It is something that happened. It is something that has an origin, so by trying to separate God from the evil motive of the man by arguing that God's motive is pure doesn't make any sense in a system where the motive of man is just as determined by God as the motive of God.
Let me put it in an equation and see if that helps:

Dahmer's Evil Motive --> Evil Deed (molestation) = God does no evil
God's Pure Motive --> Dahmer's Evil Deed = God does no evil

This represents what you have been arguing. Both God and Dahmer are "doing" the same thing (the evil deed), but God's motive is pure and Dahmer's motive is evil, so God is not evil. But this DOES NOT answer the question regarding the origin of Dahmer's evil motive.

God originates Dahmer's Evil Motive --> Evil Deed = God is the author or doer of evil.

Do you understand now?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, I'm not making it all about permission. I have affirmed your statement regarding how God has disposed events and ordered things so that they will certainly come to pass. I even affirmed it when you wrote, "God ordained that the event should come to pass in eternity past. By ordain I mean that he planned it, intended for it to come to pass, actively organized the universe so that it most certainly WOULD come to pass because he had a divine purpose for the event."

Why then are you debating me?

You agree that God wills for evil to exist, right?

You agree that God has a purpose for all evil, right?

You agree that that purpose is noble and divine, right?

You agree that God made it so on purpose that evil would most certainly come to pass, right?

If yes to all of these, then why are we debating?

In the same sentence you say that God cannot do a wicked thing on the one hand, and on the the other you say God is doing wicked but his MOTIVE is pure. Which is it.

It is NOT wicked if the motive is pure.

It is really that simple.

Two people set out to kill Hitler. They partner in it.
One person wants to kill him because he is so commissioned by his government which governs a nation sure to be obliterated by Hitler if he is not stopped. His motive is patriotism.
The other person wants to kill him because he has an insatiable blood lust and can kill this man without consequence. The idea of legally killing a man appeals to him greatly. He loves to kill people and he is good at it. He relishes the idea of seeing a man bleed and die.

They both working together and at the same time kill Hitler. The same deed. Two VERY different motives. One was a murderer when he killed Hitler, the other was a hero. Same deed but by no means were the two participants morally equivalent. No decent person could accuse the first of murder and no decent person could think highly of the second.

Its either:

1. God does wicked with the a good motive

Or

2. God doesn't do wicked, period.

No it is not either... or...
This is a False Dilemma.

It's not both. Notice, Edwards NEVER says this. He never attempts to say God is the doer of evil, but his motive is good so its ok. Can you point to where He ever says that?

I am not saying that God does evil, so there is no need for me to point this out.

But I did provide a very clear quote from Edwards saying that God both permits AND decrees evil.

And what you are not getting is that the very motive of man is determined by God in your system so this distinction is meaningless.

No it is not. This is not accurate. I have not said that. My system abandons the origin of evil to mystery but at the same time ACCEPTS what the Word of God teaches concerning the matter.

Dahmer's Evil Motive --> Evil Deed (molestation) = God does no evil
God's Pure Motive --> Dahmer's Evil Deed = God does no evil

This represents what you have been arguing. Both God and Dahmer are "doing" the same thing (the evil deed), but God's motive is pure and Dahmer's motive is evil, so God is not evil. But this DOES NOT answer the question regarding the origin of Dahmer's evil motive.

No it does not represent what I have been arguing.

Answer the questions posed to you earlier and you will clearly see this.

 

[Aaron]

OK thanks Aaron.

Just so you will know (if you don't already), the word "flesh" or "sarx" has a wider scope of meaning in the original language of the NT than just the molecular material covering of the bones although it does include that meaning.

It can be metaphorical.

e.g. In John 6 Jesus spoke of us "eating" His "flesh" which in the 21st century cannot be done (unless one believes in transubstantiation).


HankD

And one takes his fleshly nature from the woman as much as from the man.

 

[Aaron]

1. Then what is meant by ones "Adamic nature"?

Is that a Scriptural term?

2. Why is Adam the first Adam, and Christ the Second Adam?

Lots of reasons, but mostly because Adam and Christ are two representatives of mankind, one in death and the other in life. Adam was not born of a virgin, so it has nothing to do with Christ's virgin birth.

 

[Amy.G]

And one takes his fleshly nature from the woman as much as from the man.

Then why didn't Mary pass the sin nature to Jesus?

 

[DHK]

Is that a Scriptural term?

It is a theological term that refers to our sin nature inherited from and passed down from Adam.

Lots of reasons, but mostly because Adam and Christ are two representatives of mankind, one in death and the other in life. Adam was not born of a virgin, so it has nothing to do with Christ's virgin birth.

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18)

Because of the sin of Adam judgment has come upon all men. Condemnation has come upon all men. That judgment and condemnation comes through the seed of a man. The promise of a Messiah was through the seed of a woman (Gen.3:15). That way He would escape the condemnation and judgment (the sin nature) that is passed down through Adam. There is no other way that Christ could be born free from sin.

 

[Skandelon]

Why then are you debating me?

You agree that God wills for evil to exist, right?

You agree that God has a purpose for all evil, right?

You agree that that purpose is noble and divine, right?

You agree that God made it so on purpose that evil would most certainly come to pass, right?

If yes to all of these, then why are we debating?

I don't know Luke, you tell me. You are the one who goes beyond these statements and says God caused evil and God is the doer of evil but with good motive so its not evil. Those are the points of our contention. No one knows what you mean when you say "God wills for evil" because you turn around and say God is doing evil in the next sentence and then quote Edwards who argues that God is not the doer of evil....And you don't understand why we can't understand you.

It is NOT wicked if the motive is pure.

It is really that simple.

Ok, find me a quote from Edwards (or any scholar) that says that God does evil, but because his motive is pure its not evil.

Two people set out to kill Hitler. They partner in it.
One person wants to kill him because he is so commissioned by his government which governs a nation sure to be obliterated by Hitler if he is not stopped. His motive is patriotism.
The other person wants to kill him because he has an insatiable blood lust and can kill this man without consequence. The idea of legally killing a man appeals to him greatly. He loves to kill people and he is good at it. He relishes the idea of seeing a man bleed and die.

They both working together and at the same time kill Hitler. The same deed. Two VERY different motives. One was a murderer when he killed Hitler, the other was a hero. Same deed but by no means were the two participants morally equivalent. No decent person could accuse the first of murder and no decent person could think highly of the second.

Where your analogy misses our point of contention is regarding the origin of the intent of the blood thirsty guy. If the hero drugged the other guy and caused his intent to be a blood thirsty murderer so that he would certainly carry out the deed, then yes he would be culpable. The hero originated the blood thirst.

If however, the hero foresaw the deed and permitted it to continue so as to bring an end of Hitlers reign of terror, then there would be no issue. Why go beyond that?

But I did provide a very clear quote from Edwards saying that God both permits AND decrees evil.

And you think to Edwards "decree" means to originate or do evil when he has already denied that accusation as being heresy? Couldn't it merely mean to foreknow, dispose events, allow so that they will certainly come to pass? Must it mean more than that?

No it is not. This is not accurate. I have not said that. My system abandons the origin of evil to mystery but at the same time ACCEPTS what the Word of God teaches concerning the matter.

You can't affirm that either God or creature must originate sinful intent? What other option is there?

Answer the questions posed to you earlier and you will clearly see this.

I (along with Edwards) have already answer how God goes about accomplishing these things, why do I need to go over my view of those things again?

 

[Luke2427]

I don't know Luke, you tell me. You are the one who goes beyond these statements and says God caused evil and God is the doer of evil but with good motive so its not evil. Those are the points of our contention. No one knows what you mean when you say "God wills for evil" because you turn around and say God is doing evil in the next sentence and then quote Edwards who argues that God is not the doer of evil....And you don't understand why we can't understand you.

Ok, find me a quote from Edwards (or any scholar) that says that God does evil, but because his motive is pure its not evil.

Where your analogy misses our point of contention is regarding the origin of the intent of the blood thirsty guy. If the hero drugged the other guy and caused his intent to be a blood thirsty murderer so that he would certainly carry out the deed, then yes he would be culpable. The hero originated the blood thirst.

If however, the hero foresaw the deed and permitted it to continue so as to bring an end of Hitlers reign of terror, then there would be no issue. Why go beyond that?

And you think to Edwards "decree" means to originate or do evil when he has already denied that accusation as being heresy? Couldn't it merely mean to foreknow, dispose events, allow so that they will certainly come to pass? Must it mean more than that?
You can't affirm that either God or creature must originate sinful intent? What other option is there?

I (along with Edwards) have already answer how God goes about accomplishing these things, why do I need to go over my view of those things again?

My time is about up here, but Earth Wind and Fire knows how to get a hold of me.

Suffice it to say, that I am not saying that God does evil.

It is not possible for God to do evil.

All that he does is good.

If you will answer those questions that I have asked you to address multiple times now you will see this.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My time is about up here, but Earth Wind and Fire knows how to get a hold of me.

Suffice it to say, that I am not saying that God does evil.

It is not possible for God to do evil.

All that he does is good.

If you will answer those questions that I have asked you to address multiple times now you will see this.

So long brother.....check your e-mails

 

[Luke2427]

So long brother.....check your e-mails

God bless you guys!!:thumbsup:

It has been edifying!:love2:

 

[Luke2427]

double post

 

[HankD]

Hopefully no one is too deeply troubled by not being able to explain the unexplainable.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.​

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!​

We're not asked to understand every nook and cranny of God's works but rather to trust Him, we can all do that.​

Proverbs 5
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.​

Proverbs 18:10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.​

HankD​

 

[HankD]

Then why didn't Mary pass the sin nature to Jesus?

No "Y" chromosome?

Just pondering. No matter what He is still our Savior.

HankD

 

[webdog]

My time is about up here, but Earth Wind and Fire knows how to get a hold of me.

Suffice it to say, that I am not saying that God does evil.

It is not possible for God to do evil.

All that he does is good.

If you will answer those questions that I have asked you to address multiple times now you will see this.

Your entire premise is flawed. You are arguing if God commits a sin, it is then no longer a sin, but a good act.

Using this logic Christ cold have succumbed to any of Satan's temptations in the wilderness as if He would have sinned, it would not have really been a sin but an act of good.

 

[Aaron]

Then why didn't Mary pass the sin nature to Jesus?

You're still thinking of sin, death and evil as things. As if an evil man is one who is in all ways whole, but is contaminated by something additional, and you think this contamination is somehow transfered through the male reproductive cells.

An evil man is a man who is NOT whole. An evil man is not contaminated, but corrupted. Something isn't added to him, something is taken. Adam lost it in the Garden (so did Eve). And that thing is life. No longer living, Adam could not beget living children.

That is what is meant when the Scriptures say that in Adam all sinned. Adam could not give life, neither could Eve, and neither could Mary. Christ's life is in Himself. He is His own reason for being. Incorruptible, impeccable, undying. He is whole in Himself. You think a Y chromosome, a dust spec, is going to bring Him down?

 

[Aaron]

The promise of a Messiah was through the seed of a woman (Gen.3:15).

True

That way He would escape the condemnation and judgment (the sin nature) that is passed down through Adam.

The Scriptures do not say this.

There is no other way that Christ could be born free from sin.

The Scriptures do not say this either.

 

[DHK]

True

The Scriptures do not say this.

I quoted you Romans 5:18, so yes the Scriptures do say that the judgment and condemnation handed down from Adam to man would escape Christ if he were not born of man.
That coupled with Gen.3:15 (the seed of a woman), and with Paul's words of Gal.4:4 "made of a woman" give enough evidence that the virgin birth was necessary for Christ to avoid the sin nature that comes upon man because of Adam's sin.

We are children of wrath; children of disobedience, by our own nature fulfill the desires our flesh and of our mind. (Eph.2:2,3).
Our innate nature is our sinful nature inherited from Adam.
It cannot be changed. We are born with it.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23)
--The Ethiopian has no power to change his skin.
--The leopard has no power to change his spots.
--And man, because of his nature, has no power to do good apart from the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. He needs a new nature. He is born with a sin nature. That is the plain teaching of this verse.

The Scriptures do not say this either.

The Scriptures do teach that Christ had to be born of a virgin to avoid the sin nature, as I have demonstrated above. Man inherits a sin nature.
Why then the virgin virgin birth? What purpose would God have in it? A simple fulfillment of prophecy? No, much more than that! He was the God-man. He had to be born the sinless Son of man, without sin. No man is born without sin. Christ because of his virgin birth was born without sin. He is the only one.

 

[webdog]

Being born of a virgin was for a sign. Anything beyond that is eisegesis.

 

[DHK]

Being born of a virgin was for a sign. Anything beyond that is eisegesis.

Pure unadulterated opinion with a refusal to look at the totality of Scripture.

IMO, it is sad to see what I perceive to be an attack on such a fundamental doctrine as the Virgin Birth of Christ by evangelical Christians, particularly by Baptists.

 

[webdog]

Pure unadulterated opinion with a refusal to look at the totality of Scripture.

IMO, it is sad to see what I perceive to be an attack on such a fundamental doctrine as the Virgin Birth of Christ by evangelical Christians, particularly by Baptists.

Were you describing your view...because what I stated was biblical. Your premise must be arrived at by reading into the text things that are not there.

The Roman Catholics invented the Immaculate Conception to deal with the eisegetical viewpoint you have stated. Is the Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the Incarnation as most believers I know do) a fundamental, or even orthodox for that matter?