Was Sin and Death designed by God?

[BobRyan]

The choice for sin in Adam is the mechanism that separated Adam from light/life/righteousness and thus a fall from light/life/righteousness into darkness/death/unrighteousness. None of this by design but the natural consequence due to separation from the source of light/life/righteousness.

God supernaturally barred Adam from access to the tree of life in Gen 3.

God supernaturally creates the Rev 20 lake of fire "punishment" -

God supernaturally creates the Rev 20 second resurrection -- that of the wicked.

God supernaturally places enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of man.

In Col 1 - God supernaturally sustains all life - that means Lucifer as well as you and me.

Total inability consists in whether fallen man who has fallen into darkeness/death/unrighteousness can restore himself by a reversal of will to light/life/righteousness.

It is an academic concept not found in real life - because fallen man "does not exist in the total absence of God". Rather mankind exists IN the context of God and His Gospel reach toward man.

Thus the Calvinist idea of "total inability" is never seen in some God-vacuum chamber. We see it only in the context of God reaching and even sustaining fallen humanity.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[percho]

It is stated that the devil, that is Satan has the power of death. Heb 2:14

Would Adam have sinned had Satan not been in the garden with him?

and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. From James 1:15

Why did Adam sin?

God had taken the woman from the man and she met up with the serpent, in the garden. This serpent. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: Rev 12:9

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: James 1:14 and first part of 15

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14

I believe God had a plan.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

 

[percho]

I believe the record, that is the word of God, shows that the eternal God through man, a means by which to bring forth his Son, born of woman, taken from man made in the image of the eternal God is doing battle with the adversary of God.

How did the adversary of God become the adversary of God?

Man is the means subjected to the adversary, yet will also be redeemed from the adversary through a covenant of God the Father with his Son.

 

[Yeshua1]

But is God in control over the consequences that sin has on mankind? For example, labor pains are said to be a direct result of the fall. Did God have any control over that? Could God have made it so women do not have labor pains, or is that beyond His control?

was the Cross of jesus planned and determined by God beforeor after the fall of adam?

 

[Skandelon]

was the Cross of jesus planned and determined by God beforeor after the fall of adam?

i think terms like 'before or after' are linear not infinite.

 

[Skandelon]

The term "assistance" is the crux of our argument. What man lost cannot be regained by any kind of "assistance" as man does not "assist" God in salvation
but that is the underlying principle of all types and forms of salvation by works.

That may be your view of the issue, but we are talking about what is POSSIBLE, because you seem to be denying even the possibility of God to enable man to freely respond... You seem to think effectual regeneration was the ONLY option for God to handle the 'natural condition' of fallen man. Is that your position? That God was just not capable, even if He wanted to, to enable a free response? God's ONLY option was to either leave men in their fallen condition OR effectually regenerate them, there was NO POSSIBLE middle ground of 'enabling' man to respond?

I'm not asking what you think scripture reveals and I'm not asking you to restate your position. I'm asking what you believe is within God's abilities in response to the fall.

 

[percho]

was the Cross of jesus planned and determined by God beforeor after the fall of adam?

Before. Before he created Adam who would bring death to man. BTW what death?

Why was the Son/Lamb slain before there was a man, the sin of the man or death to the man that sinned?

Is death and darkness the opposite of life and light?

What was on the earth first?

 

[percho]

Regeneration was going to have to take place because Satan who has the power of death was going to bring death to everything subject to death.

For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

I ask again is it just the man that needs to be born again/from above?


I do not think we are going to be able to save ourselves. I think we had better put our hope in God.

 

[BobRyan]

That may be your view of the issue, but we are talking about what is POSSIBLE, because you seem to be denying even the possibility of God to enable man to freely respond... You seem to think effectual regeneration was the ONLY option for God to handle the 'natural condition' of fallen man. Is that your position? That God was just not capable, even if He wanted to, to enable a free response?

That is pretty much what Calvinism limits God to doing. Apparently God cannot simply "draw ALL mankind" unto Himself in away that does not zaaapp them into being born again first - then asking them to choose Christ second -- no matter what Romans 10 says to the contrary.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

God supernaturally barred Adam from access to the tree of life in Gen 3.

God supernaturally creates the Rev 20 lake of fire "punishment" -

God supernaturally creates the Rev 20 second resurrection -- that of the wicked.

God supernaturally places enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of man.

In Col 1 - God supernaturally sustains all life - that means Lucifer as well as you and me.

And your point is......???

It is an academic concept not found in real life - because fallen man "does not exist in the total absence of God". Rather mankind exists IN the context of God and His Gospel reach toward man.

The total absence is spelled out in scripture as being "dead" spiritually which is by definition the total absence of the life/light of God.

Thus the Calvinist idea of "total inability" is never seen in some God-vacuum chamber. We see it only in the context of God reaching and even sustaining fallen humanity.

Again, the total vacuum is the evil heart of fallen men which is desperately wicked. Again the total vacuum is being "dead" spiritually which is the total vacuum of spiritual life/light of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

That may be your view of the issue, but we are talking about what is POSSIBLE,

That is the Biblical definition of grace (Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8-10) WITHOUT WORKS and thus WITHOUT HUMAN ASSISTANCE.

because you seem to be denying even the possibility of God to enable man to freely respond...

I defy you or any other Arminian on this forum to show where the Greek term "elkuo" or "draw" is EVER used in scripture to mean that anything is bestowed upon the object drawn so that coming is a mere potential instead of an inseperable reality.

You seem to think effectual regeneration

There is no other kind of regeneration in scripture as it is always effectual because the will of man has nothing to do with its source of power or application (Jn. 1:13; James 1:18).

was the ONLY option for God to handle the 'natural condition' of fallen man. Is that your position?

I used the words "natural consequence" but the fallen "condition" of man was not "natural" but supernatural due to the "law of sin" filling the vacuum previously filled by the life/light/righteousness of God.

That God was just not capable, even if He wanted to, to enable a free response?

The term "draw" NEVER means or is used to imply or infer some kind of power is being transferred or bestowed upon sinners for potential to come or resist. That is purely a figment of your imagination. If they are drawn they do come or they are not drawn (Jn. 6:64-65). To be drawn is to be regenerated as it is the internal change wrought in man whereby the light of knowledge is imparted by direct revelation (2 Cor. 4:6; Mt. 16:17; Gal. 1:15-16; 1 Thes. 1:4-5).

God's ONLY option was to either leave men in their fallen condition OR effectually regenerate them, there was NO POSSIBLE middle ground of 'enabling' man to respond?

There is no middle ground between light and darkness, lost and saved, regenerated and unregenerated, in the Spirit and in the flesh, life and death, the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God.

 

[Skandelon]

You've answered my question. You MUST believe that God is not omnipotent in order to consistently hold to your position. I'm not saying you deny omnipotence...I know you don't. I'm saying to be consistent you'd have to deny omnipotence because you have continually argued on this thread and others that God could NOT, even if He so desired, to enabled lost men to respond freely to his appeals or commands. That is a blantant denial of God's omnipotent abilities.

Now, if you want to clarify your statements to mean, "Yes, He COULD have done it that way, but I don't believe scripture teaches that is what he does," then fine. But I have asked you in every way I know how and you have continually denied even the possibility of God choosing to do things in the way I have suggested which is a denial of omnipotence.... ' i.e. God isn't powerful enough to have done it that way.'

BTW, I never say that about Calvinism. I believe God is more than powerful enough to do it the way Calvinists suggest. In fact, hard determinism seems like a relatively simple creation as even men can created a 'robot world.' (I know you are not a hard determinist)

 

[The Biblicist]

You've answered my question. You MUST believe that God is not omnipotent in order to consistently hold to your position. I'm not saying you deny omnipotence...I know you don't. I'm saying to be consistent you'd have to deny omnipotence because you have continually argued on this thread and others that God could NOT, even if He so desired, to enabled lost men to respond freely to his appeals or commands. That is a blantant denial of God's omnipotent abilities.

Now, if you want to clarify your statements to mean, "Yes, He COULD have done it that way, but I don't believe scripture teaches that is what he does," then fine. But I have asked you in every way I know how and you have continually denied even the possibility of God choosing to do things in the way I have suggested which is a denial of omnipotence.... ' i.e. God isn't powerful enough to have done it that way.'

If it was an issue of merely granting powerpower or self-enablement then of course God is able to do anything not self-contradictory to His nature. However, it is not an issue of enablement but an issue of self-contradictions requiring creative power that only is found in God. You are asking if God can enable a dead condition to be a living condition or condition of darkness to be enabled to become a condition of light or enable a condition of unrighteousness to be a condition of righteous, all of which are oxymornic outside of CREATIVE power which no being possesses or can posses without creating another God. The power of reversing self-contradicting conditions.

 

[Yeshua1]

:applause::applause:

At everyone of these points in time that you listed the deterministic worldview makes NO COMMON SENSE. When you remove free will (responsibility) from the equation all of this history become pure non-sense. It confounds everything when you simply leave out human response-ability.

Do you hold that mankind still retained the SAME free will to choose/reject God as Adam and Eve had then?

is God bound by time, is he constrained to operate in just linear fashions, that he is some how limited Himself to be :"blind: to the Future until it actually happens, and then he reacts? that the fall was unknown to him somehow?

 

[The Biblicist]

In fact, hard determinism seems like a relatively simple creation as even men can created a 'robot world.' (I know you are not a hard determinist)

That is because you don't understand the true nature of freedom. There is no such thing as freedom FROM YOURSELF but that is what your system demands. There is no such thing as a "will" acting independent of the being possessing that will but that is precisely what you system demands. No such freedom of the will as that exists.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is because you don't understand the true nature of freedom. There is no such thing as freedom FROM YOURSELF but that is what your system demands. There is no such thing as a "will" acting independent of the being possessing that will but that is precisely what you system demands. No such freedom of the will as that exists.

God alone has absolute free Will, for his is NOT bound/limited by His nature, fore he is perfect in all of his attributes, so he will always choose right and best, we howeve are bound.restricted by sin natures, will usually chose wrong!

 

[Skandelon]

That is because you don't understand the true nature of freedom. There is no such thing as freedom FROM YOURSELF but that is what your system demands.

That is simply untrue. The freedom is from OUTSIDE determination. Really you could call my believe 'self-determinism' because I believe a chooser is the determiner of his choices.

You (compatiblists) believe men are controlled by their desires, which are controlled by their nature which is controlled by God, which IMO reduces moral choice to instinct. I believe men have the capacity to choose to act in accordance with any one of their competing desires. I believe men are RESPONSE-ABLE, and thus able to respond to their environment and the revelation of God. I don't believe man's responses are pre-programmed reflexes to the prefixed environment. I believe it is more complex than that.

There is no such thing as a "will" acting independent of the being possessing that will but that is precisely what you system demands.

That is factually incorrect. It may be the way your perceive it, just as I perceive your compatiblism as nothing more than hard determinism with a couple of smokescreens added in to subtly suggest some level of separation between God and moral evil.

 

[Skandelon]

If it was an issue of merely granting self-enablement then of course God is able to do anything

FINALLY! So, if God was ABLE to grant this and chose not to then clearly he is responsible for the decision to leave men in their disabled condition from birth. That is what I've been arguing all along. He decided the totally disabled condition of the fallen nature by NOT choosing to enable man to respond even though He could have. He sovereignly made that determination in your system and you've been attempting to avoid that fact for a while now.

I know you don't believe the scripture supports that God DID do this, and I understand what you think God did do, but that is beside the point regarding this argument. This is about God's CHOICE to leave men unable to respond while holding them response-able for their choices. And you've been acting as if God had nothing to do with man being in the condition that is unable to respond, which is impossible without denying His sovereign omnipotent abilities.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is simply untrue. The freedom is from OUTSIDE determination.

In regard to your personal view, that is true ONLY because you deny the Biblical condition of the fallen nature. Hence by eliminating or neutralizing the internal INSIDE obstacle does your position have any consistency. However, the foundation of your position is anti-Biblical.

You (compatiblists) believe men are controlled by their desires, which are controlled by their nature which is controlled by God, which IMO reduces moral choice to instinct.

That is your SPIN on what I believe but it is certainly not what I believe. I do not believe "their nature which is controlled by God" but is the consequence of their own sin. Nice try though!

I believe men have the capacity to choose to act in accordance with any one of their competing desires.

Yes, you believe contrary to Christ that the fallen nature is capable of inherent goodness (agathos) while Christ repudiates this very foundation of your belief system.

I believe men are RESPONSE-ABLE, and thus able to respond to their environment and the revelation of God. I don't believe man's responses are pre-programmed reflexes to the prefixed environment. I believe it is more complex than that.

Yes, your system is based upon a perverted view of "draw" which you claim imparts neutral ability distinct and separate from coming to Christ which only is a potential of that ability while the Greek term "elkuo" NEVER means that and ALWAYS demands that coming is inherent in being drawn and is inherently inseparable from it. Hence, another Biblical truth is perverted to justify your system.

That is factually incorrect.

you have to be joking???? You actually believe that the faculty of will is INDENDENT of the being possessing it and thus can operate contrary to the very nature of that being? If that is your position, then the will is a creature all by itself independent of any other being.