BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

They started worshiping the second they got there, not "when they ate their fill and thrive"...

Were they not eating well from the start, in Canaan, though?

Deuteronomy 6:10-11 When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you--a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant--then when you eat and are satisfied...

And this is one thing I hate to hear, "Unless we know he is speaking from our perspective," you could completely nullify any word God speaks by simply saying "he is speaking from earthly standards, so don't take it as it says."

But I can take all the conditional statements as real conditionals! And still realize that God may well know the outcome.

Deuteronomy 7:12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you...

Now here we have a conditional statement, yet elsewhere we are told that God knows the outcome, that the condition will not be kept. But this doesn't mean we can take this conditional statement to mean anything we want. It just means that when God gives a condition, he may know if it will be fulfilled.

Like saying "If I were to become an astronaut, I would like to see the moon." Knowing full well, and everyone around you knowing full well, that you will never be an astronaut. Now this statement is adopting a hypothetical perspective, but that doesn't make it mean just anything.

Deut 4 is full of places talking about how Moses prayed to God to change his mind in order that the above might come to pass.

Then why did God not think Moses would pray for them, when Moses had prayed for the Israelites time and time again?

And then I have some Jonah questions, which will apply here.

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.

Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

And we also need not always follow God's counsel, for another choice may turn out better, even from his perspective. Only Scripture says differently...

And again, how is it that God is not lying, when he makes an unconditional statement, knowing it might not happen?

I think the alternative, that God knows the future, and sometimes speaks from a hypothetical perspective, from our perspective, is the better option here...

John 6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Bling, please let's keep these shorter.

First thing. Godly love and fellowship. Let's just start from that.

True or false?

Godly love can happen without fellowship for humans(i.e. the good Samaritan).

When a human Fellowships with God he is fulfilling Godly love.

I think the desire to fellowship with God will lead to loving him the way God desires for us to love him. You can not discredit fellowship, and you cannot discredit love when you have fellowship too. Both become a part of one another when you start with a desire to fellowship.

 

[patman]

Rob

Rob

Rob,

Thanks for trying to make things shorter.

My logic is not breaking down at all because I know the need for being born again rises from the need of being saved from sin.

I believe you are putting to much on the "spirit gives birth to spirit" because you are taking it out of context a little. Jesus was trying to explain how it was possible to be born again, not how it is necessary for everyone whether they were sinless or not.

I am glad you see that it was evil of Adam to break a command of God. Adam was certainly a grown man and understood breaking the command, the one command, was wrong. I hope you will start to see that breaking the command was not necessary.

BFF,
Pat

 

[patman]

Then why did God not think Moses would pray for them, when Moses had prayed for the Israelites time and time again?

And then I have some Jonah questions, which will apply here.

Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran.

Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not.

Now we have to question God's unconditional promises, for the situation may change, and God may have to change his plan.

Also, God may act in a way that spoils his plan, not only may the situation change, and cause a change of plan, but God may do something that wrecks his own plan.

And we also need not always follow God's counsel, for another choice may turn out better, even from his perspective. Only Scripture says differently...

And again, how is it that God is not lying, when he makes an unconditional statement, knowing it might not happen?

I think the alternative, that God knows the future, and sometimes speaks from a hypothetical perspective, from our perspective, is the better option here...

John 6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.

Blessings,
Lee

God wasn't asking Moses if he should destroy Israel. He said he would do it. When God says something, it means he truly intends to do it.

Saying he said he would do something, and then not doing it knowing ahead of time he wouldn't do it and saying it the same is a lie no matter what nice powers you attribute to God.

 

[RobE]

Rob,

Thanks for trying to make things shorter.

My logic is not breaking down at all because I know the need for being born again rises from the need of being saved from sin.

I believe you are putting to much on the "spirit gives birth to spirit" because you are taking it out of context a little. Jesus was trying to explain how it was possible to be born again, not how it is necessary for everyone whether they were sinless or not.

I am glad you see that it was evil of Adam to break a command of God. Adam was certainly a grown man and understood breaking the command, the one command, was wrong. I hope you will start to see that breaking the command was not necessary.

BFF,
Pat

Your logic is breaking down here:

Sin comes from breaking the Law which God created. So, using your logic, if God created the law then God made sin. The parallel is here: If God created Adam who could fall then God created the fall. There's no escaping it. The Garden was set up in such a way as to facillitate the fall. This is not saying that God sinned or God forced Adam to fall; it's just saying that if you drop a rock it will fall by the laws of nature.

Adam had in his nature the ability to fall just as a rock falls when you drop it. Did Adam have it in his nature to NOT break the first law? Yes. But how long would it take him to break some law or another? Don't you see?

By God setting the stage for the fall, God did not do an evil act: It was ultimately a 'good' act. Think of it as a 'controlled' fall instead of an unexpected 'chaotic' fall.

Answer me this: Is it possible in your mind for Adam to NEVER have broken a law and remained 'good'? You already know I believe this to be a mathematical(logical) impossibility.

You also need to consider that now you are a 'new' creation which doesn't preclude you from breaking the law, does it? Yet you are sinless through Our Lord. Adam has been made sinless the same way. Flesh from flesh, Spirit from spirit. The Vine and the branches.

Could Adam have been the Vine for mankind?

Merry Christmas Christians,

Rob

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

God wasn't asking Moses if he should destroy Israel. He said he would do it.

With a condition! "Now leave me alone..." Implying that if Moses did not leave God alone, then destruction might be averted.

Saying he said he would do something, and then not doing it knowing ahead of time he wouldn't do it and saying it the same is a lie no matter what nice powers you attribute to God.

Unless there is a condition in the promise or the threat...

Merry Christmas to all from me, too!

Lee

 

[patman]

With a condition! "Now leave me alone..." Implying that if Moses did not leave God alone, then destruction might be averted.
....
Unless there is a condition in the promise or the threat...

Bling, that in no way is a condition. That's a "Go away" not a "if you go away i'll kill 'em." Even if it were a condition, you are still unable to explain how God could still be honest in his promises even with conditions while having absolute foreknowledge.

Remember the weather man example?

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Your logic is breaking down here:

Sin comes from breaking the Law which God created. So, using your logic, if God created the law then God made sin. The parallel is here: If God created Adam who could fall then God created the fall. There's no escaping it. The Garden was set up in such a way as to facillitate the fall. This is not saying that God sinned or God forced Adam to fall; it's just saying that if you drop a rock it will fall by the laws of nature.

Adam had in his nature the ability to fall just as a rock falls when you drop it. Did Adam have it in his nature to NOT break the first law? Yes. But how long would it take him to break some law or another? Don't you see?

By God setting the stage for the fall, God did not do an evil act: It was ultimately a 'good' act. Think of it as a 'controlled' fall instead of an unexpected 'chaotic' fall.

Answer me this: Is it possible in your mind for Adam to NEVER have broken a law and remained 'good'? You already know I believe this to be a mathematical(logical) impossibility.

You also need to consider that now you are a 'new' creation which doesn't preclude you from breaking the law, does it? Yet you are sinless through Our Lord. Adam has been made sinless the same way. Flesh from flesh, Spirit from spirit. The Vine and the branches.

Could Adam have been the Vine for mankind?

Merry Christmas Christians,

Rob

Rob, as I read that I make a similar judgement... that your argument falls apart.

I guess you never saw my reply to you in a different form, I already addressed the rock argument.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=950789&postcount=971

Hey RobE!

I have come out of the other form and got to looking around and found you here.

I saw this quote and HAD to reply

I was just wondering if ...... (1)I dropped a rock and (2)it fell to the ground and (3)I knew it would fall............would Open Theism accuse me of making it fall; OR, would they give me the courtesy of recognizing I only allowed it to fall and let nature take its course?

Rob

Let's just change a few things around first, make it more "real", what do you say?

Lets remove the word "rock" and put in "baby" or "young child"

(1)I dropped a BABY and (2)it(theBABY) fell to the ground and (3)I knew it would fall.................would Open Theism accuse me of making it fall?

We wouldn't accuse you of making gravity work, but we would say you could have hurt that child!

It's more like this:

God Holds us in his hands as if we were children. If we want him to hold us, we can jump out of his hands! If we want to stay, we can stay there. Whatever happens, God is not at fault for trying to hold us.

We know that dropping something and allowing it to jump are two different things. The thing you don't seem to see is that by dropping it, You caused it to fall by means of cause and effect. If it jumped out, that was its own fault, not yours.

The traditional views of those opposed to the Open View are 1) God predestined it all to happen or 2) God started it the way it went(i.e. caused the fall). I know you are not a 1, but you have said to me before that you are a 2.

The "2" believe that Adam was a diver over a rocky ocean, daring himself to jump. Well, along comes God and pushes him off.

The Open theist removes the "God pushing part," and sees no reason to come to such a conclusion.

You are so longing for the Open Viewer to tell you that having a simple foreknowledge about something relieves God responsibility. But God knew if he dropped that baby, it would fall and hurt itself, and according to you, foreseeing the hurt, dropped it anyway, God would be responsible for dropping a baby(of course God would never do that, this is said for a lack of a better way).

Then you assert that it was OK, because God strapped a helmet to it. I.E. God's creating Adam knowing he would fall is OK because he also knew Jesus would die for that sin.

Doing a bad thing, and then doing something good to make up for it does not justify the bad thing. The only thing that can justify it is retribution/punishment. God can't just push Adam into the fall and then say "I'll give him a life-saver, that will free me from the blame." That is why God didn't do it at all, because he is not a sinner needing punishment as we are.

Even Jesus rebukes saying "If any of you cause one of these little ones to sin, it would be better if you threw yourself into the depths with a stone tied around your neck." Why would he rebuke knowing he did it to Adam?

For we come back to the O.V. Standing now, that Adam jumped out of God's arms, not that God dropped Adam foreseeing his falling and initiating it.

Thanks Rob,
-Pat

 

[patman]

RobE part 2

RobE part 2

I want to restate my example of the "2" view, make it more accurate.

When I said "The "2" believe that Adam was a diver over a rocky ocean, daring himself to jump. Well, along comes God and pushes him off," I should have said:

This is how you present God:

God created Adam on the edge of a cliff with a wall behind him and a rocky shore below him. Everything was designed to make him jump, if not accidently fall because Adam would fall asleep and roll off by natural desire to sleep and fidget.

Either either way, God is like the bad guy in "Saw," who didn't kill anyone by his own hands, but designed scenarios for the victim to die by their own doings. God created a cage full of razors and put Adam on the other end with the only way out to be going through the razors, thus bleeding to death by the time he even got close. The only way out is death by design.
_______

I present creation as Adam having a true choice, God or no God. No God means you need something to separate yourself from him, that is sin. Not Just any sin, but a sin that would accuse you for all time when you sin, a continuos knowledge of sin and hopefully prevent sin. Not only one way out, and that being sin.

 

[RobE]

I present creation as Adam having a true choice, God or no God. No God means you need something to separate yourself from him, that is sin. Not Just any sin, but a sin that would accuse you for all time when you sin, a continuos knowledge of sin and hopefully prevent sin. Not only one way out, and that being sin.

My perception of God is better explained by this:

Lee is a dad watching his son stand up for the first time. Lee knows his son is going to fall so stands ready to catch him. Lee could have removed his sons legs or held him down, but realized that if he did that, then his son wouldn't learn to walk. To make it as safe for the boy as possible Lee has made an environment where, when the boy falls, he won't get killed. Is Lee evil for doing this?

Do you believe that you will be condemned for your father's sin?

Even though Lee knows more than his son....

The choice is there, truly,

RobE

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by Patman
Bling, please let's keep these shorter.

First thing. Godly love and fellowship. Let's just start from that.

True or false?

Godly love can happen without fellowship for humans(i.e. the good Samaritan).

When a human Fellowships with God he is fulfilling Godly love.

I think the desire to fellowship with God will lead to loving him the way God desires for us to love him. You can not discredit fellowship, and you cannot discredit love when you have fellowship too. Both become a part of one another when you start with a desire to fellowship.

Yes we know God loves us even if we do not fellowship Him.

I can not find in scripture where is says, “Fellowshipping God fulfills the requirement to love God.” You go on to say “the desire to fellowship”, but I also do not read anywhere about the desire to fellowship with God of people that do not love God. If we say “Godly love” includes the “desire” and will also cause us to want and seek fellowship with God then I think we are on the right track. Godly love is compelling. We do not start with a desire to fellowship our enemies that cause us to love them, we are told to love (with a Godly love) our enemies and do good to them, but without them showing reciprocal love we should not “fellowship them”. We would probably agree that Lucifer was in fellowship with God, but at some point did not love God. Adam was in fellowship with God, but this did not produce the love that would keep him from sinning. The Bible says, “if you love me you will obey me” and does not say if you fellowship with me you will obey me. Love is stronger then fellowship and I am saying will produce fellowship and not the other way around.

What makes you think “fellowship” comes before love?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

That's a "Go away" not a "if you go away i'll kill 'em."

Why then did Moses think it was a condition? Don’t his prayer, and God relenting, indicate that Moses was right to think this was conditional?

Even if it were a condition, you are still unable to explain how God could still be honest in his promises even with conditions while having absolute foreknowledge.

Because God also tells us at various times that he knows the outcome! How then is this lying, to give a hypothetical condition?

Again, as in saying “If I was an astronaut, I would like to see the moon.”

And you have not yet explained to me how God is not lying if he makes an unconditional statement, yet knowing that it might not happen, and possibly having to afterwards, change his mind.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Hello Everyone

Hello Everyone

I hope that I can get back into posting like before. I ask your patience until on the posts in the mean time.

Happy Holidays to all.

-Pat

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Yes we know God loves us even if we do not fellowship Him.

I can not find in scripture where is says, “Fellowshipping God fulfills the requirement to love God.”

You go on to say “the desire to fellowship”, but I also do not read anywhere about the desire to fellowship with God of people that do not love God.

If we say “Godly love” includes the “desire” and will also cause us to want and seek fellowship with God then I think we are on the right track.

....

Adam was in fellowship with God, but this did not produce the love that would keep him from sinning. The Bible says, “if you love me you will obey me” and does not say if you fellowship with me you will obey me. Love is stronger then fellowship and I am saying will produce fellowship and not the other way around.

What makes you think “fellowship” comes before love?

Bling, Thanks for your patience.

I do not expect the following statement to mean a lot or to prove anything, but you should keep it in mind.

Just because something isn't written in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't true.

Fellowship is not the most important thing in the world, but still yet God desires it of us. He also desires our love. He does not want only fellowship, and he does not want only love, he want's both. I hope you can agree to that.

I have said that the fellowship God wants requires love, you seem to say love is the only thing he wants and fellowship is not required. I hope you reconsider that. Having fellowship and love with God is greater than just having love.

Both fellowship and love were achievable with God without sin even before sin entered the world. In fact they are only possible without sin. If you are with sin it is impossible to love God the way he wants you to, so sin entering the world was a bad thing. It wasn't God's idea or intention that it happened that man would sin, but due to his love and our freedom, it happened.

Your "objective message" is incomplete and misleading. Godly love is not the only point of our lives, and sin should never be categorized under something as holy as "God's Objective for man."

I wish you would see that your message promotes the "goodness" of sin, and its "necessity," and points to it being used to produce love! Effectively calling evil good. I know the love can rise from sin, but you go as far to say it was necessary! Sin is never necessary to produce love.

 

[patman]

Lee

Lee

Why then did Moses think it was a condition? Don’t his prayer, and God relenting, indicate that Moses was right to think this was conditional?

Moses knew something that you don't seem to agree with. Moses knew that God could change his mind. Moses, and any other non bias reader can recognize that these events were not of a "conditional promise." God intended to take an action and Moses changed God's mind by his prayer.

Even if it were a condition, you are still unable to explain how God could still be honest in his promises even with conditions while having absolute foreknowledge

Because God also tells us at various times that he knows the outcome! How then is this lying, to give a hypothetical condition?

Again, as in saying “If I was an astronaut, I would like to see the moon.”

And you have not yet explained to me how God is not lying if he makes an unconditional statement, yet knowing that it might not happen, and possibly having to afterwards, change his mind.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, time and time and time and time again I have shown how God is not lying if he makes an unconditional statement knowing it could change later based on circumstances.

A man says "If my wife cheats on me I will leave her," and one day she does, and confesses to him and promises to change. That man does not leave her after all. Is the man a lier? No. Why? Because he promised to love her till death do them part. Love means forgiving. Thus his two opposing statements come together.

To answer to your moon statement:

If anyone promises good for someone on a circumstance that he knows will be an unachievable, and then does bad for that person instead, that person lied and was very dishonest. I hope you see this is exactly what you are saying God did.

God does not know with 100% certainty any outcome to a distant future event in regards to every aspect. I have shown so many times how God said something would happen and it didn't, or how God said he would do something and didn't, condition or not, and it all begs the question "how can God know all of the future?"

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

My perception of God is better explained by this:

Lee is a dad watching his son stand up for the first time. Lee knows his son is going to fall so stands ready to catch him. Lee could have removed his sons legs or held him down, but realized that if he did that, then his son wouldn't learn to walk. To make it as safe for the boy as possible Lee has made an environment where, when the boy falls, he won't get killed. Is Lee evil for doing this?

Do you believe that you will be condemned for your father's sin?

Even though Lee knows more than his son....

The choice is there, truly,

RobE

RobE, your explanation sounds nice, but it sounds incomplete.

You have said many times that God designed us to fall.

Your situation seems more complete to say "Lee put obstacles in the 'safe' environment to cause the child to fall."

That situation is really comparing apples to oranges anyway. Sinning is not like learning to walk. When you learn to walk, you fall on accident, you are not sinning. If you already know how to walk, and you walk a path that makes you stumble on purpose, you are now sinning.

You assertion of God seems more like God intentionally put obstacles in the path of live to guarantee all of us sin so that he might be the hero and help us up. This does make God the author of our sins (when he knows the future of his actions especially).

My claim is that we put our own obstacles on the path and sin is never intended for our lives not by design at all.

 

[RobE]

RobE, your explanation sounds nice, but it sounds incomplete.

You have said many times that God designed us to fall.

Your situation seems more complete to say "Lee put obstacles in the 'safe' environment to cause the child to fall."

That situation is really comparing apples to oranges anyway. Sinning is not like learning to walk. When you learn to walk, you fall on accident, you are not sinning. If you already know how to walk, and you walk a path that makes you stumble on purpose, you are now sinning.

You assertion of God seems more like God intentionally put obstacles in the path of live to guarantee all of us sin so that he might be the hero and help us up. This does make God the author of our sins (when he knows the future of his actions especially).

My claim is that we put our own obstacles on the path and sin is never intended for our lives not by design at all.

More to the point. God is realistic. He knew that if a man, that could sin(free will), was created then that man's fall was inevitable. So knowing the future, God arranged the fall where the least amount of damage would occur; AND, made a way so that every evil which came out of the fall would be taken and paid for by Himself(Jesus). Does this sound like a loving God to you?

Your alternative is that God made man not knowing what the man would do. Then the man broke the law a God said 'Uh, Oh. I guess We better do something about this. What can We do? I know, I'll pay for the man's sin.

My questions to you are:

1) Why didn't God wipe Adam out immediately and start over?
2) Why did it take 3,500 years for Jesus to appear and take away the sins of the world?
3) How could Jesus pay for your sins if God didn't know that you were going to exist?

Happy New Year,

Rob

 

[bling]

It is good to have you back.

Originally Posted by Patman
Fellowship is not the most important thing in the world, but still yet God desires it of us. He also desires our love. He does not want only fellowship, and he does not want only love, he want's both. I hope you can agree to that.

I said, “If we say “Godly love” includes the “desire” and will also cause us to want and seek fellowship with God then I think we are on the right track.”

Originally Posted by Patman
I have said that the fellowship God wants requires love, you seem to say love is the only thing he wants and fellowship is not required. I hope you reconsider that. Having fellowship and love with God is greater than just having love.

Where in the Bible is God called “fellowship God”? God is Love! God requires and has commanded us to LOVE Him with no command to fellowship Him. God does fellowship with the Spirit in our dispensation if we love Him, but the issue is always our love for God.

Originally Posted by Patman
Both fellowship and love were achievable with God without sin even before sin entered the world. In fact they are only possible without sin. If you are with sin it is impossible to love God the way he wants you to, so sin entering the world was a bad thing. It wasn't God's idea or intention that it happened that man would sin, but due to his love and our freedom, it happened.

Fellowship did exist in the Garden without sin, but Godly type love for God by Adam and Eve was not achieved in the Garden or they would not have sinned. Sinners and non sinner are commanded to love God. To come out of sin we turn in love to God for His loving forgiveness. David was deep in sin when he turned with his strong love for God, seeking God’s forgiveness, but was he a big sinner at the time? Did Dave love God more after being forgiven or just before he sinned? I have generated a dozen postings some with no response to by you that explains why sin is necessary to develop Godly type love for God in the Garden. I have also shown you, God’s stated objective for man is, “love God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy.” With that objective, God most unselfish act would be to do all He can do to help human’s achieve their objective, which could (and will) include allowing humans to sin. God created humans with the ability develop Godly love, unfortunately that also included Satan in the world, Christ going to the cross and sinning because there was no other way to develop Godly type love for God. The Garden example shows us that the best alternative was not good enough.

Originally Posted by Patman
Your "objective message" is incomplete and misleading. Godly love is not the only point of our lives, and sin should never be categorized under something as holy as "God's Objective for man."

How can you give your all too loving God and not have that as your objective????
Where does the scripture say we are to give our all to anything else?
Loving others as Christ loves/loved us is out of His love for the Father first and the only way we could possible achieve that goal.

The objective is not stated as: “never ever sin”, if it was then only Christ achieved the objective. The objective is to develop a love like David’s love for God had after being forgiven for murder and adultery. You and I are both saying, “All adult mature humans have and will sin.” Can we then say, “God allow that to happen”?

Originally Posted by Patman
I wish you would see that your message promotes the "goodness" of sin, and its "necessity," and points to it being used to produce love! Effectively calling evil good. I know the love can rise from sin, but you go as far to say it was necessary! Sin is never necessary to produce love.

I never say sin is good. Sin is always wrong and in need to be carried by Jesus on the cross for forgiveness which is a huge price to be paid for a sin. But sin is going to happen not because it is God’s fault, but because of man and Satan. Man, the world, Satan, and Christ going to the cross are all to fulfill man’s objective. A Godly type love that takes all in us, that requires selflessness, sacrifice, deep consideration, and deep understanding (a contrast evil, examples Christ going to the cross and others, experiencing the power through being forgiven, and personal expression of love going through us). I do say, Good can and should come out of every evil and every tragedy.

The only examples we have of mature human individuals developing Godly love for God is after they have sinned, except for God Himself on earth, which we can be like after we receive the indwelling Spirit, but the Spirit does not happen before we have sinned at least once. The only possible support might come from Angles, but we know extremely little about the development of angles and if they were in some other mortal body before when they did sin and their sins in that body were forgiven and forgotten and latter had a Spiritual body (became angels) that would not have to sin (like we will have) in heaven. We can not say how angels developed Godly type love for God or the degree to which they have that type love or even if they have that type love. We do not need to know, what we need to know is how we can develop that type of love for God.

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

More to the point. God is realistic. He knew that if a man, that could sin(free will), was created then that man's fall was inevitable. So knowing the future, God arranged the fall where the least amount of damage would occur; AND, made a way so that every evil which came out of the fall would be taken and paid for by Himself(Jesus). Does this sound like a loving God to you?

Your alternative is that God made man not knowing what the man would do. Then the man broke the law a God said 'Uh, Oh. I guess We better do something about this. What can We do? I know, I'll pay for the man's sin.

My questions to you are:

1) Why didn't God wipe Adam out immediately and start over?
2) Why did it take 3,500 years for Jesus to appear and take away the sins of the world?
3) How could Jesus pay for your sins if God didn't know that you were going to exist?

Happy New Year,

Rob

Rob, God didn't say "Uh-Oh," he did have a plan just incase it did happen.

And yes, God is realistic, that is why he had that plan. The difference between you and me is that you think every human ever born or ever to exist was designed to need grace. I say every sinner, not every human.

You assert that God created/designed man to sin to meet that ends. I say God created every man with a choice and that there are some who did not sin (aborted babies, mentally disabled adults, others who's lives were cut short before sin was born to them). They have no need for the forgiveness offered by the cross. And there are millions of those people. Sin free, flesh free. They could sin if they want in heaven, but many won't.

Just like the countless angels who never sin but are still used and loved by God and love God back. Why would God create all man to fall and only 2/3 of the angels to stand?

He wouldn't. He created all of us with a choice. The angels who fell chose to fall. And Adam brought sin into the world for us all by his choice. He gave us our fleshly nature. We get it from him, not God.

1) Why didn't God wipe Adam out immediately and start over?
Love.

2) Why did it take 3,500 years for Jesus to appear and take away the sins of the world?
Perhaps he would have done it sooner had the flood not been needed first. I would be interested if you would answer the same question. My short answer is because of human resistance.

3) How could Jesus pay for your sins if God didn't know that you were going to exist?
Because Grace covers all sin. Even future sins and uninvited sins. The death of God the son is justification enough for an infant amount of sin. Any future person who wanted it be cleansed by the blood as the river never runs out.

Your question 3 is the perfect example of the calvinistic idealism creeping into the SV. I know you do not claim to be calvinist, but this question makes you sound like it.

How? If future knowledge is required for the forgiveness of sins because Jesus literately bore all future past and present sins, that means at that moment sin was forgiven for future sins and those were saved even before they were born.

Those people who were forgiven will without doubt be forgiven, and those who are fallen will forever be.

In that light, with reguards to your question 1, why doesn't God end everything now since he knows who will fall and who will stand? If you are right, at this moment in time he has what he needs. He knows who will be saved, he has justification for their sins, he could just end it all, recreate everyone in heaven with the memories they need and put those sinners in hell.

Why doesn't he just cut to the chase? Because he is patient? Because he enjoys watching us all squirm? Because we have lessons to learn? He doesn't want to get in the way?

Everyone of those answers are lacking. Each answer produces a million more questions and no final answer. But with Open Theism the answer is that he is patiently waiting for those who have yet to change because he doesn't know the future actions of those sinners, so he must wait.

 

[patman]

Bling

Bling

Where in the Bible is God called “fellowship God”? God is Love! God requires and has commanded us to LOVE Him with no command to fellowship Him. God does fellowship with the Spirit in our dispensation if we love Him, but the issue is always our love for God.

Bling the comment above tells me you are not reading my posts well. It looks like you are skimming them over.

Please read this again:
"I have said that the fellowship God wants requires love, you seem to say love is the only thing he wants and fellowship is not required. I hope you reconsider that. Having fellowship and love with God is greater than just having love."

You clearly didn't understand it. Let me rephrase it. I didn't call God the fellowship God nor imply the Bible called him that.

"I have said that God wants fellowship that requires love. You see to say love is the only thing God wants, and fellowship is not required. Please reconsider! Fellowship and love with God is better than love only."

But God obviously desires our fellowship:

1 Corinthians 1:9
God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 John 1:3
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:6
If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

The verse above shows that fellowship with him is only possible if you are not a sinner. If you are free from sin, you are in God's love and love him back. You are following his command to love him.

Psalms 101
6 My eyes shall be on the faithful of the land,
That they may dwell with me;
He who walks in a perfect way,
He shall serve me.
7 He who works deceit shall not dwell within my house;
He who tells lies shall not continue in my presence.

Just what do you think walking with God is, Bling?

God desires a lot from us. It isn't only love! By the above, if you are in fellowship with God, you are loving him too!! If you are in fellowship with God, you are loving others!!! Why? because you are fulfilling the two greatest commands by not sinning.

Fellowship did exist in the Garden without sin, but Godly type love for God by Adam and Eve was not achieved in the Garden or they would not have sinned.

Fellowship with God was all but lost in the Garden because of sin. Had there been no sin, all men would fellowship with God.

Obviously Adam and Eve blew it. But according to you they didn't start to love God till they sinned. That simply goes against all the teaching of the bible, Bling.

You gotta do bad to love. That's simply wrong.

Bling over and over again in your last post I see so many ways you misread me. I am going right over your head. Maybe you don't take in each word or read it completely. I don't know.

You must have not read my other posts neither. I did answer the very questions you accuse me of ignoring. I think you just skimmed over them and totally missed it. Or maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you forgot my answers. But I don't think you forgot. I think you never knew.

I am not the best at reading and grammar. But when I want to read something and understand it, I try to do it. Sometimes it takes re-reading a sentence, and looking up words. Sometimes you gotta read it out loud. And when I write I have a spell checker running to catch my misspelt words. I proofread my writings.

It is important that I understand you, and you understand me. I almost always proofread what I send to you so I get the feeling that what I send to you is understandable.

I wish you did that. Read this sentence in your last post and tell me if it makes any sense to you:

"I have generated a dozen postings some with no response to by you that explains why sin is necessary to develop Godly type love for God in the Garden."

"to by you that"??

I struggle to read you sometimes. Sometimes I have to re-read you a few times to get exactly what you are saying.

Using less words does wonders: "I have posted a dozen posts that you did not respond to about the necessity of sin to develop Godly type love in the Garden."

I ask from now on you proofread your writings to me and fully read mine to you.

Now....

You have said it plainly, sin is necessary for love, and I disagree. And I have answered that, you obviously know I did or get the sense that I did because you know I disagree. Do I ever not give at least one reason as to why I disagree with something?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=936852&postcount=476

Bling, your views are based in scripture, but not to the means you take them. You are building your own rooms in the house that are not a part of Gods plan, you do so thinking you are right because you got the idea from God's plans, but they are still your own.

You should know that doing evil that good may come of it is still doing evil. And you should know that God shuns sin, and does not plan sin. He cannot tempt. He cannot create sin. He cannot make us to be sinners. He cannot look ahead knowing what we will do and create that anyway.

Alarms should be going off in your heart when you think that God would create us knowing we would sin. They should sound above the roaring of the sun's fires that God would have anything to do with sin and planning it into our discovery of love.

I beg you to reconsider that my ideas are not problematic because you cannot account for the solutions. And I beg you to reconsider if your ideas are as I said above.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=950199&postcount=509

Rightly judge what is good, and what is evil. Stop your deceitful thoughts that tell you that God would cause evil. Your arguments that sin is needed for Agape love puts shame on God, and his love for us!

....

You place the full responsibility of our current state on God, who looked at this, and created it anyway. You say "God couldn't resist creating us even knowing the sinners and sins that would come about with 100% certainty." And worst, you say "It was for the best." And even worst, you say "he even arranged it to happen."

According to you, the first round, God couldn't bestow Agape love on his creation without sin. So he gave us sin that we might understand it. Now this second time, sin will not be required because we will magically be able to agape love without sin. God will do the second time(the recreation of heaven and earth) what he "forgot" to do the first time(allow us to understand and exercise agape love without need for sin)? God will do what he "gracefully didn't" do the first time?

What is your answer bling? Why didn't God just give us understanding of love that he wanted us to have when it was always possible for him to do it? Why didn't God allow us to grasp it without sin the first time? And why make it a two round creation, one that sin rips apart, and one that sin has no part of, and love be possible for both, only one requires sin and the other doesn't?

Why not just do the right thing the first time and not require sin for the understanding of love? He can do it, he has the power. Why cause this suffering for loves sake by sin, when it isn't even necessary? How can you say God does that?

Because you believe that God would do evil that good may come of it.

To you, God wasn't strong enough to stop himself from creating a world like this. With his future knowledge, he looked ahead and was content with the world. And he saw 9/11, the holocaust, the death marches, the disease and hunger, pain and hurt and saw an small spark in it all and you must believe that HE said, "I will create earth, and it will indeed be wicked, as I am the LORD, it will be wicked. Yet for this one small spark I will do it, for I cannot stop myself.

"I know I hate evil, and I know billions and billions of my children will suffer because I created them. Indeed, as Jesus will one day say, it would be better that they had never been born once they see the hell I will send them too.

"I know I will regret creating man on the earth, and will be grieved in my heart that I created him.

"However, I will create it knowing it will all fall apart, then I will step in in a mighty way and do what I should have done the first time. Create something that will be perfect forever. But the first time I do it, I will cause it to fall apart with sin. Then the second time, only a few will enjoy the love, the small spark that I foresaw. And those who fall will have fallen because of the sin I arranged him to commit."

Bling, that is evil. Reject that thinking!! Instead, say "God created us as a universe full of light, for he made it all perfect; even Satan was perfect at creation! But it had freewill, a choice to love or to hate, and the future wasn't foreseeable, so God didn't know all that darkness would happen. He expected nothing but good, but instead got evil. And the light fell into darkness from it's own freewill, for God caused nothing to happen that is sinful. But all will be well again one day, when God separates the darkness from the light, and the light will shine forever apart from the darkness. Then, when God recreates what we messed up, the light will be together, and all will be right."

Bling, Even Jesus recognizes some are better off not being born! Do you challenge him?

Mark 14:21
"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Jesus said it this kind of thing on other occasions too. He knows that It would be better if sinners had never been born, for the hell they know is real.

Don't miss the point, bling. God created good, and expected good. Instead he got bitterness, and the bitterness was unexpected and undesired. Don't say that the bitterness God got was really sweetness. Don't be like those silly children I told Rob about!

Isaiah 5
1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?

God's expectations are real. If he thinks something will happen, he really thinks something will happen. This message is to Israel, it is about how God planted them, how he expected them to be good, but were evil instead. But it is also about the world. God planted the world. He expected it to bring forth Good grapes. But instead, look at all the wickedness.

Bling, a lot of my other answers not re-posted were found near the bottom. Do you get tired of reading and just go to replying midways down and totally not read?

It is frustrating to think all this writing is just going unread. I know it happens sometimes, I try not to, but I have done it before. But I don't accuse you of not doing something you did.

Bling, don't take any of this personal. I am not attacking you, I am just asking you read me and accuse me rightly. I am the one who should feel attacked if any. But I don't, I know it was just a mistake.

So now to go back to my point. Love, Godly love especially, does not require sin to be achieved. Sin is in opposition to love. Sin simply offers a need to forgiveness, which the sinner might realize his being forgiven means he is loved, and he might love back. But that does not mean sin is required for love!!

Love can exist independently of sin. You should stop calling sin necessary for our objective!!!!

And you should stop limiting our objective. God created us to do a lot of things and for a lot of reasons.

Remember this post? I went in to many of our objectives with scripture:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=908781&postcount=428

Man's Purpose - To have fellowship with God. To be the image and likeness of God. To be as a "god" to the animals and the earth by having authority over them. To populate the earth.

1 Corinthians 1:9
God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

Genesis 1
"26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

....

Fellowship with the son does not require the cross for those who do not know sin. The healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick, so those without sin do not need the cross, but those who do sin. Had Adam not sinned, he would have no need for the cross to have fellowship for Jesus.

Remember that fellowship with God requires love and obedience. And love and obedience means having fellowship with him. You said that yourself.

There are a lot of things we are to, should be, auto be, must be, doing. If I read scripture I can say the Bible tells us to believe, confess, hear, accept Christ as our savior, pray with out ceasing, be baptized, fellowship Christ and/ or the Spirit, fellowship other Christians, worship, study, glorify God, meditate, serve others, love others and a lot other stuff. Now you can take any one of these, since scripture tell us we are to be doing them and make a case for that being our objective.

And I do just that. You sum it up in in Love, which can be incomplete with out saying "Oh yeah, love means hanging out with someone." But I say a loving relationship, or fellowship, with God should be our objective.

You put too much on Agape love. It is one of the many loves God wants for us to have with him and with each other. It is a wonderful love, it is called "godly love" but it isn't the only love there is that God wants to share with us. Agape love requires no former relationship and requires no post relationship to give or receive.

God desires a love from us that does require a fellowship. God has different relationships with us all, some bigger than others, some smaller. He wants that fellowship because it comes with many types of love.

Like I said before, walking with God is more than loving him. It is being with him. God created us to do a lot of things, but the most satisfying of them all is fellowship with love in him and with him.