The Tree and Garden

[J.D.]

Uh oh, another thought! Double

I can't wait to see the responses to this! :laugh:

God is the beginning of the "circle". The Father desired to give the Son a gift.
But the gift had to be as pure as the Son. Since the Son wasn't created but always existed, God had to create man and then purify (perfect) him through Christ, Who is perfect.
The fall occurred (was planned), man needed a redeemer to raise him to life as Christ is life. Through Christ he is made pure, righeous and holy, as Christ is pure, righteous and holy.

At the end of the age when God rids the universe of evil, what is left is the perfect gift of holy, righteous and pure human beings (being made so through Christ) who God gives it to the Son. A perfect bride for His perfect Son.

We are the gift God gives to Christ and Christ is God's gift to us and thus the circle is complete.

A perfect circle of purpose and life.

It all had to happen just the way God planned.

Ok, now you can :tonofbricks:

Amy, I didn't see any responses to this post so I thought I would chime in. I love your "circle" analogy. I've always thought of the circle as beginning with God determining to receive glory, so he makes the following decrees: to create man, elect to save some and pass over others, allow the fall, the fall brings sin, SIN NECESSITATES REDEMPTION, Christ obtiains redemption, the Holy Spirit applies redemption, the elect experience redemption, the redeemed glorify God, the circle is complete. And it's all the work of God. Everything has a purpose, including sin.

Isn't it amazing?

 

[Amy.G]

:thumbs:

Amy, I didn't see any responses to this post so I thought I would chime in. I love your "circle" analogy. I've always thought of the circle as beginning with God determining to receive glory, so he makes the following decrees: to create man, elect to save some and pass over others, allow the fall, the fall brings sin, SIN NECESSITATES REDEMPTION, Christ obtiains redemption, the Holy Spirit applies redemption, the elect experience redemption, the redeemed glorify God, the circle is complete. And it's all the work of God. Everything has a purpose, including sin.

Isn't it amazing?

I thought maybe my post was so far out everyone was avoiding it. :laugh: Thanks for the response!

The work of God is amazing!

 

[J.D.]

I thought maybe my post was so far out everyone was avoiding it. :laugh:

The work of God is amazing!

I think everyone was caught up in trying to figure out what this angelic war theory was all about. Did we ever get any light on that subject other than a link to amazon?

 

[Amy.G]

I think everyone was caught up in trying to figure out what this angelic war theory was all about. Did we ever get any light on that subject other than a link to amazon?

None, only the links that were provided. I didn't find anything useful in them, and Q doesn't want to discuss it (with me at least).

 

[Benjamin]

Amy, I didn't see any responses to this post so I thought I would chime in. I love your "circle" analogy. I've always thought of the circle as beginning with God determining to receive glory, so he makes the following decrees: to create man, elect to save some and pass over others, allow the fall, the fall brings sin, SIN NECESSITATES REDEMPTION, Christ obtiains redemption, the Holy Spirit applies redemption, the elect experience redemption, the redeemed glorify God, the circle is complete. And it's all the work of God. Everything has a purpose, including sin.

Isn't it amazing?

I wrote this in response to another tread the other day and might as well post it here:

I would suggest that evil does not necessarily have to be created but exists as a truth within the nature of a creation that God made good. (Gen 1:31) God’s abides in truth and only after the creation of spiritual creatures was set forth by God, and because of the truth of design of His creatures, did they themselves actualize evil. God knew they would do this of course and in His great love for His creatures and in His grace He provided the way of salvation. (I think we would agree grace can only be given for something not deserved; first, man did not deserve even the beginning of creation, and IMO grace began with God’s gift of propitiation-the promise which was offered for mans salvation for the love of the truth-that He is God. Second, it is impossible to please Him without faith (Heb 11:6), man being freely drawn in grace must put forth his hand (Gen 3:22) and come to God in faith, and He is a rewarder of them who seek Him-in Truth)

I would ask those who would attempt to proclaim evil is the creation of God, (Deu 32:4) what is the truth of God’s nature and is it in love of Christ that some would accept a doctrine that limits God’s love in a belief that they must have been specially picked while others were given no hope by a God who supposedly is responsible for making them evil?

Consider how all this would relate to the existence of God before creation; could evil had been part of God’s nature or was He only Good? Simply, before creation did God’s nature contain any evil or was He 100% good??? The answer “should” be obvious and considering God’s nature does not change, nor can He logically do something against His own nature which is Truth and Love, that when God’s materialized a creational work it would only be good and man was solely responsible for the evil actualizing.

 

[Benjamin]

1) Who desired to place the tree in the garden?

A God of Truth who made His creatures in His likeness and image; and the truth is that that evil would exist by the nature in which God designed man with a free will. In man’s design having free will He would desire to choose to have the knowledge of good and evil. Yes, God knew this.

2) When this was placed in the garden, was God aware what would happen?

Of course God was aware what would happen; why do you think He gave His only begotten for redemption if it wasn’t a necessity by the truth of the nature of creation in which He placed man?

3) What happened to man in the garden?

Of his own free will he chose to have the knowledge of good and evil by disobeying God and eating of the tree. Yep, man being created in God’s likeness and image desired to be as a god and thereby man became responsible for the existence of evil when he fell short with this knowledge of judgment as there is only One Judge, and only He knows good. But the God of Love had a plan for us creatures that He made in this design; now lest man put forth his hand and also take of the tree of life he will not live forever. God then kept the way of the tree of life (conditional upon faith) just as He had promised before the foundation of the world. Pretty cool huh, what the God of Love planned for His creatures made with volition in the world which He designed? John 3:16

 

[npetreley]

I think a dose of Pink is warranted here.

How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator's original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Psa. 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

The following link is not to Amazon, where you can purchase the book. It will actually take you to text you can read by Pink about the Sovereignty of God (what a concept, eh?).

http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/index.html?mainframe=/books/pink/index_sov.html

 

[Benjamin]

About that love that some would imply this a view that is “domesticating God”!

I would say in God’s love for His creatures (that He uniquely designed with a spirit, in His likeness and image), knowing that they would fall in the garden from the beginning in the truth of that design that He didn’t necessarily pre-forgive, but did offer loving grace for all His creatures that would believe that He is God within the creational aspects of time in which we exist; with Him and that He interacts with us.

God, our Creator, reveals/explains His love to us from the beginning of time in His Word from Genesis telling us within our finite understandings the circumstances we were created under which included a nature that would freely choose to have knowledge and judgment of good and evil thinking we could be as a god. The question one might ask is why God would create us under these circumstances which I am inclined to believe that so love would abound and this by creaturely design that if in a positive response from His creatures reacting to His revealing of love brings about the truth of the nature of love. Another question is why would God want creaturely love? And I would say for His glory in the truths that love would overcome the existence of evil which came about as a truth in the existence of a world that God created as good.

One more question pertaining to this is why would God create us knowing evil would freely exist as a logical true comparison to His good work coming about shortly after the existence of this world within His designs of creaturely volition? I can only speculate, but considering the alternative I’m glad He made the decision to have creatures.

I can’t even phantom thinking of myself as being specially picked over God’s other creatures because that would be to deny the Omnibenevolent loving nature of God which He would have for all His creatures. I found myself being called and freely walking toward the light of the truth of God being love in which God shined over the entire world. Some would allude to my thoughts of freedom in design to being an illusion of free will in order to fit their theological boxing, but I find God’s plan of redemption being conditional upon faith in truth, His forgiveness offered to all in truth by a promise given in His real loving nature. Anyone who would deny God’s loving nature toward the creation of all His creatures in the vain attempt to understand God’s knowledge and power and would put that above His truly offering forgiveness to all cuts short the love of God who gives the water of life freely to all that would come.

 

[Amy.G]

A God of Truth who made His creatures in His likeness and image; and the truth is that that evil would exist by the nature in which God designed man with a free will. In man’s design having free will He would desire to choose to have the knowledge of good and evil. Yes, God knew this.


Of course God was aware what would happen; why do you think He gave His only begotten for redemption if it wasn’t a necessity by the truth of the nature of creation in which He placed man?


Of his own free will he chose to have the knowledge of good and evil by disobeying God and eating of the tree. Yep, man being created in God’s likeness and image desired to be as a god and thereby man became responsible for the existence of evil when he fell short with this knowledge of judgment as there is only One Judge, and only He knows good. But the God of Love had a plan for us creatures that He made in this design; now lest man put forth his hand and also take of the tree of life he will not live forever. God then kept the way of the tree of life (conditional upon faith) just as He had promised before the foundation of the world. Pretty cool huh, what the God of Love planned for His creatures made with volition in the world which He designed? John 3:16

You are still saying that God made His plans based on what man would do. It seems to me that a sovereign God would make His plans based on His plans alone, not being influenced by anything man might do.

 

[Benjamin]

You are still saying that God made His plans based on what man would do. It seems to me that a sovereign God would make His plans based on His plans alone, not being influenced by anything man might do.

I simply/obviously don't agree to the Calvinistic boxed view of what God's sovereignty must consist of.

 

[Allan]

You are still saying that God made His plans based on what man would do. It seems to me that a sovereign God would make His plans based on His plans alone, not being influenced by anything man might do.

You are still misunderstanding though Amy.

It is not that God is influenced by man but that Gods plan incorporates man volition AS PART OF His plan.

 

[Allan]

I think a dose of Pink is warranted here.



The following link is not to Amazon, where you can purchase the book. It will actually take you to text you can read by Pink about the Sovereignty of God (what a concept, eh?).

http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/index.html?mainframe=/books/pink/index_sov.html

Yes, it reveals just how inept he was in understanding anything other than his Calvinism, but it is of no surprize coming from Pink.

He was a good man but a often very wrong.

 

[Allan]

:thumbs:
I thought maybe my post was so far out everyone was avoiding it. :laugh: Thanks for the response!

The work of God is amazing!

I almost answered it, but I erased it because what you gave had to many flaws, and since it was also just an illistration, I left felt better to just leave it alone.

Ok, I tried to leave it alone, but you did have one BIG quirk at the beginning and others but I'll just give the one: :laugh:

When God determined to give His Son a gift and then decided that gift would be man. (paraphrasing of couse) Then He made man.
If is here your 'quirk' come in. God made man, but God made man sinless. Man could have been given to the Son at this point since he was sinless, and therefore justified (not having sinned yet when the prohibition was given), sanctified (being set apart unto God or better - the only ones God had a realationship with), and even unified with God (since that realationship was an intimate one), even made man in His own image.

But God didn't give it yet. Instread He decreed for man to fall and for His Son to have to redeem that gift Himself which the Father would later give Him.

Now I'm just messing with you Amy, since I know it was only an illstration and not set forth as theology. But it was cute.

 

[youngmom4]

I just have a question here: Doesn't the idea that only certain "elect" can come to salvation pose an opportunity for those who believe it to boast about their salvation? I mean, realistically speaking, that would mean that God picked you and didn't pick other people, right? And doesn't Paul specifically state that salvation is attained by faith so that no man can boast? Wouldn't this idea of the elect specifically refute that?

A small illustration (go easy on me...I'm not very creative, so I can only go with what I know :laugh: and that's kids): If I choose to give two out of my four children a gift and leave the other two out, what is going to happen? The two that receive the gift are likely going to feel pride, that they are special and have been chosen to receive a gift; being kids, although we've certainly tried to teach them better :saint: , they will likely brag and boast to the two who didn't receive a gift. The two that didn't receive the gift are going to feel unloved and likely rebel against me just because I didn't give them a gift. The two that got a gift are going to feel like they must be better than the other two...and so on and so forth.

Does anybody but me see a problem with this aspect of theology? God wants all of us to become His children, and He is certainly being patient in waiting for as many as will to come to salvation.

 

[Allan]

I just have a question here: Doesn't the idea that only certain "elect" can come to salvation pose an opportunity for those who believe it to boast about their salvation? I mean, realistically speaking, that would mean that God picked you and didn't pick other people, right? And doesn't Paul specifically state that salvation is attained by faith so that no man can boast? Wouldn't this idea of the elect specifically refute that?

A small illustration (go easy on me...I'm not very creative, so I can only go with what I know :laugh: and that's kids): If I choose to give two out of my four children a gift and leave the other two out, what is going to happen? The two that receive the gift are likely going to feel pride, that they are special and have been chosen to receive a gift; being kids, although we've certainly tried to teach them better :saint: , they will likely brag and boast to the two who didn't receive a gift. The two that didn't receive the gift are going to feel unloved and likely rebel against me just because I didn't give them a gift. The two that got a gift are going to feel like they must be better than the other two...and so on and so forth.

Does anybody but me see a problem with this aspect of theology? God wants all of us to become His children, and He is certainly being patient in waiting for as many as will to come to salvation.

In scripture we find Paul rebuking the Gentiles for their boasting of their election over the Jews in Rom 11 and tells them not to. So in a sense, yes it can. Does it always, no.

 

[Rippon]

One of the troubles with your illustration YM , is that those who are not His want nothing to do with the Lord . They do not desire Him . They would rather just live their lives without any thought of God and His coming wrath .

The Lord is not waiting and hoping for people to decide to come to Him -- the Lord plants that inside a person -- they have no such willingness . "As many as will " ? No , in a universe of won't , there is not a single one who wills to come to God .

 

[webdog]

I just have a question here: Doesn't the idea that only certain "elect" can come to salvation pose an opportunity for those who believe it to boast about their salvation? I mean, realistically speaking, that would mean that God picked you and didn't pick other people, right? And doesn't Paul specifically state that salvation is attained by faith so that no man can boast? Wouldn't this idea of the elect specifically refute that?

A small illustration (go easy on me...I'm not very creative, so I can only go with what I know :laugh: and that's kids): If I choose to give two out of my four children a gift and leave the other two out, what is going to happen? The two that receive the gift are likely going to feel pride, that they are special and have been chosen to receive a gift; being kids, although we've certainly tried to teach them better :saint: , they will likely brag and boast to the two who didn't receive a gift. The two that didn't receive the gift are going to feel unloved and likely rebel against me just because I didn't give them a gift. The two that got a gift are going to feel like they must be better than the other two...and so on and so forth.

Does anybody but me see a problem with this aspect of theology? God wants all of us to become His children, and He is certainly being patient in waiting for as many as will to come to salvation.

I agree. When I was leaning towards calvinism, just prior to falling into it fully, my friend (who's a calvinist) told me to re-read Romans 9...and tell me how that related to me individually. Putting the context of the chapter out of sight for a moment, I began to feel real special and prideful that God had chosen me above someone else. It was at this point the uneasiness started to build with how I was feeling, and had to really study Romans 9 again taking myself out of the equation. It is clearly dealing with Israel, and any personal gratification I was feeling from being chosen specially was false.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I just have a question here: Doesn't the idea that only certain "elect" can come to salvation pose an opportunity for those who believe it to boast about their salvation? I mean, realistically speaking, that would mean that God picked you and didn't pick other people, right? And doesn't Paul specifically state that salvation is attained by faith so that no man can boast? Wouldn't this idea of the elect specifically refute that?

A small illustration (go easy on me...I'm not very creative, so I can only go with what I know :laugh: and that's kids): If I choose to give two out of my four children a gift and leave the other two out, what is going to happen? The two that receive the gift are likely going to feel pride, that they are special and have been chosen to receive a gift; being kids, although we've certainly tried to teach them better :saint: , they will likely brag and boast to the two who didn't receive a gift. The two that didn't receive the gift are going to feel unloved and likely rebel against me just because I didn't give them a gift. The two that got a gift are going to feel like they must be better than the other two...and so on and so forth.

Does anybody but me see a problem with this aspect of theology? God wants all of us to become His children, and He is certainly being patient in waiting for as many as will to come to salvation.

Your sense of understanding that election as defined by Calvinists is wrong is clear here and that will be a source of strength for you as you continue in your studies.

Your illustrations does make a point but it is important when using illustrations and analogies that they have dynamic parallels. Here, though you have a valid point, your illustration does not support or dynamically match the passage:

The passage you are referred to was Eph 2:8-9

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The boasting here is of those working for salvation, or earning it through some form of human righteousness or merit system. The boasting of election that you refer to would not (if one did boast in such a manner) be boasting because of a work they did to attain it but of their special status with God as being one chosen for salvation and other by default rejected. And even in that Calvinists do not teach they had some form of virtue merit but the chose is a Divnely Sovereign. So the illustration fails in that respect (I say this of course as a former Calvinist and now non-Calvinist myself).

 

[Rippon]

Q: " ... but the chose is a Divnely Sovereign." What are you trying to say in English ? Remember to keep your sentences under 20 words . Check your grammar and spelling while you're at it . But first get your theology straight . Okay , ... proceed .

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Q: " ... but the chose is a Divnely Sovereign." What are you trying to say in English ? Remember to keep your sentences under 20 words . Check your grammar and spelling while you're at it . But first get your theology straight . Okay , ... proceed .

If typos are more than you can handle, then put down the pea shooter and report back to your 8th grade homeroom. :laugh: