Was the fall necessary ?

[Cntrysner]

Romans 6:16 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?​

Yes it is by choice who one yields to.

You seem to be assuming that every temptation results in sin.

No, I do not assume it.

In the wilderness Christ was tempted and by being tempted by satan, Christ did not conceive the sin, he refused it by stating the will of the Father and by doing so Christ Himself was not tempted. There's a difference between someone tempting you and you being tempted. Christ was not tempted even though satan tried to tempt Him. Can you see the difference?

 

[Cntrysner]

Maybe you missed the Old Testament which also talked about men refusing sin without giving any credit to Christ for it?

Christ had not yet given His life for sin.

 

[Clete]

Yes, the fall of man is necessary because it gives mankind the proof that God gave mankind free will.

No, it doesn't.

The fall of man was not orchestrated by God in order to give mankind that proof, but it is used by God for the proof that some people seem to need.

Then it wasn't necessary!

Not only does it not accomplish the task of proving anything concerning free will but now by your own statement it was not necessary!

Yes, everyone can see how you misunderstood what I said because of your own agenda, despite my repeated attempts to correct your misunderstanding.

I responded to your own words. The entire thread is still here for everyone to read.

Liar.

Fool

I am not wasting your time.

Oh yes you are! But no longer. Welcome to my now grotesquely crowded ingore list.

 

[Clete]

I've seen several post talking about how man can refuse sin and not mention Christ at all so I was forcing the issue until proper recognition was given.

Oh well, I'm just so glad to have finally won your approval! I stay up at night worried about it!

Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

I see no problem taking these verses literally. Paul is explaining the nature of the unregenerate man and how he cannot will himself to do good.

He is talking about himself!

What do you find mystical about them?

Nothing at all! I don't understand the question.

I take them to mean what they say, I just don't take them so far as to think that we are incapable of doing anything good at all. It a general statement talking about the dual nature within us and how, so long as our flesh remains unredeamed, the flesh seems to win the battle far more than does that part of us which loves God and wants to please Him.

It matters how you look at the definition of good. For good to really be good it has to be a perfect good not tainted with sin.

This is such a dangerous practice! If people start to redefine perfectly well understood, normal English words to suit their doctrine then they can believe whatever they want and there's nothing anyone can do to prove then wrong. All they have to do to defeat any argument is to pull out their special English lexicon and pencil in whatever they want a word to mean.

Good is good. It isn't a complicated concept. That which leads to life is the good, that which leads to death is evil. Not complex nor confusing in any way. It's best to just leave it at that!

People can do good things sometimes but if tainted with just a pinch of pride, lust, creed, self righteousness, and etc, it is not good.

There are degrees of sin and there are degrees of righteousness. Some actions are better than others, some people are better than others.
There is nothing but confusion in store for anyone who adopts such a stringent definition of the word good so that what it means is perfect.

Paul wants us to see our sin to bring us to Christ. If we say we have no sin, at anytime, we deceive ourselves because there is none good, at anytime, but God.

Well, I already quoted you scripture that states otherwise but when you change the word 'good' to 'perfect' then all bets are off. There are indeed none who are perfect except for God and perfection is indeed God's standard which is why we need a Savior. In fact, had you used the word 'perfect' or the phrase "perfectly good" I doubt anyone would have argued with you at all.

I believe Paul is saying that in the flesh he can't do right at all, other than that...Amen and Amen.

Are you saying that you believe Paul is saying that in the flesh we can't be perfectly good at all or that we can't do anything whatsoever that is even rightly called "good" in any sense of the word?

See the confusion your redefinition causes?

If you mean the latter, Jesus Himself conctradicts you. Additionally, your logic, if applied consistently through that passage would mean that Paul was saying that he never accomplished a single good act - period. The writting of the letter to the Romans itself doesn't qualify as good by your definition.

Here's a scripture where Paul tells us how the sin nature is removed. It's a spiritual operation of God when we choose to believe that Christ took away our sin. We still live with sin and it has to be surgically removed in a sense. When this operation occurs only then are we freed from sin.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Are you a Nazareen? That is, do you attend a "Church of the Nazarene" church?

That's a serious question. Not a pagorative or implied insult of any kind whatosever. It'll just help clarify where you're coming from (or perhaps where you're headed) with this line of thought.

That just popped out.., I haven't researched it yet but it sounds good.

Oh man! I was hoping for a new argument I could use.

I guess it's all about the definition of good, mine is like God good. There was once a good under the law but it isn't anymore, it changed from faith to faith.

I understand the desire to have speciallized definition for certain things but I strongly encourage you to just avoid doing it whenver possible. I know from long experience that all it leads to is confusion, at best and if not carefully controled it can lead to outright heresy.

I'm reminded of an old television show that would air on Saturday's a long time ago that was put on by this lunatic who called himself "Yahweh Ben Yahweh". They'd begin ever episode by telling you what books you had to have handy in order to rightly understand their teaching, one of which, of course, was a very specific dictionary. I would always laugh when they'd devolope this wacky doctrine based on the 8th or 9th definition of some mundain english word. It was a total laugh riot!

Not that you're doing anything like that. I'm just telling you that it's way easier to say "perfectly good" or "perfect" or like you just did when you said "God good", rather than just using the naked word "good" but with a modified definition.

Clete

 

[Cntrysner]

No, it doesn't.


Then it wasn't necessary!

Not only does it not accomplish the task of proving anything concerning free will but now by your own statement it was not necessary!


I responded to your own words. The entire thread is still here for everyone to read.


Fool


Oh yes you are! But no longer. Welcome to my now grotesquely crowded ingore list.

If you keep this up by your own choice, loneliness is on the horizon, I know you don't mean it and you proved you didn't before.

Stop calling people fools no matter what.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[Cntrysner]

Oh well, I'm just so glad to have finally won your approval! I stay up at night worried about it!

You, as stated don't need my approval but I am asking for approval and it really doesn't matter what i think, it does however matter to me what you think.

He is talking about himself!

He was to me talking about me. Why is Paul not talking about you?

Nothing at all! I don't understand the question.

I take them to mean what they say, I just don't take them so far as to think that we are incapable of doing anything good at all. It a general statement talking about the dual nature within us and how, so long as our flesh remains unredeamed, the flesh seems to win the battle far more than does that part of us which loves God and wants to please Him.

Exactly, but Paul is revealing the very truth of sin though hard to understand because it cuts deep to bring us to Christ.

This is such a dangerous practice! If people start to redefine perfectly well understood, normal English words to suit their doctrine then they can believe whatever they want and there's nothing anyone can do to prove then wrong. All they have to do to defeat any argument is to pull out their special English lexicon and pencil in whatever they want a word to mean.

God's words are not secular and in this world only his words can define what he means or people can believe whatever they want and it is normal but that's not what we should be looking for.

Good is good. It isn't a complicated concept. That which leads to life is the good, that which leads to death is evil. Not complex nor confusing in any way. It's best to just leave it at that!

I can't just leave at that because so many can be and have been deceived by definition.

There are degrees of sin and there are degrees of righteousness. Some actions are better than others, some people are better than others.
There is nothing but confusion in store for anyone who adopts such a stringent definition of the word good so that what it means is perfect.

I fear that the truth is this, there are no degrees of righteousness.

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

How is the Father perfect? The father is perfect in all things and perfectly good which means we are not perfectly good nor can we be by definition unless we are God.

Well, I already quoted you scripture that states otherwise but when you change the word 'good' to 'perfect' then all bets are off. There are indeed none who are perfect except for God and perfection is indeed God's standard which is why we need a Savior. In fact, had you used the word 'perfect' or the phrase "perfectly good" I doubt anyone would have argued with you at all.

Sorry, my money is still on the table and sorry for my fault even though I didn't mean to commit it as you perceive.. sincerely, though I did force the point.

Are you saying that you believe Paul is saying that in the flesh we can't be perfectly good at all or that we can't do anything whatsoever that is even rightly called "good" in any sense of the word?

There is no good in the flesh, no not one, concerning man and this is what the scriptures revealed to me and I accept that revelation and by that truth I was left with no option but to choose Christ and by my choice I became a slave to righteousness in Christ. By that I mean I had to die to myself to be able to be a servant of the righteous One.

See the confusion your redefinition causes?

At this time I don't see my confusion and it is not my redefinition.

If you mean the latter, Jesus Himself conctradicts you. Additionally, your logic, if applied consistently through that passage would mean that Paul was saying that he never accomplished a single good act - period. The writting of the letter to the Romans itself doesn't qualify as good by your definition.

Paul is saying in Romans that only being a servant to God's will in Christ and being bestowed Spiritual circumcision can he do what is good.

Are you a Nazareen? That is, do you attend a "Church of the Nazarene" church?

Have no idea and no.

That's a serious question. Not a pagorative or implied insult of any kind whatosever. It'll just help clarify where you're coming from (or perhaps where you're headed) with this line of thought.

I'm trying to come from God's Word and headed to be able to deliver it with my insufficient ability.

Oh man! I was hoping for a new argument I could use.


I understand the desire to have speciallized definition for certain things but I strongly encourage you to just avoid doing it whenver possible. I know from long experience that all it leads to is confusion, at best and if not carefully controled it can lead to outright heresy.

I'm reminded of an old television show that would air on Saturday's a long time ago that was put on by this lunatic who called himself "Yahweh Ben Yahweh". They'd begin ever episode by telling you what books you had to have handy in order to rightly understand their teaching, one of which, of course, was a very specific dictionary. I would always laugh when they'd devolope this wacky doctrine based on the 8th or 9th definition of some mundain english word. It was a total laugh riot!

Not that you're doing anything like that. I'm just telling you that it's way easier to say "perfectly good" or "perfect" or like you just did when you said "God good", rather than just using the naked word "good" but with a modified definition.

I am learning from you Clete and count you as a friend. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[Clete]

If you keep this up by your own choice, loneliness is on the horizon,

I have plenty to do elsewhere. I don't suffer fools lightly and I don't appreciate having my time wasted. Besides, it's not like everyone I put on ignore stays there forever. I leave them there until I can no longer remember why I put them there and then they get another chance.

I know you don't mean it and you proved you didn't before.

Didn't mean what?

Stop calling people fools no matter what.

I find it amuzing that people tell me to stop calling people fools but I never ever see those same people telling people to stop being foolish.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

You probably think Jesus told us not to judge too.

Jesus was telling hypocrites to keep their mouths shut. It's wrong to call someone a fool without cause just as it is wrong to be angry with your brother without cause (see verse 22) or to try to remove a speck from your brother's eye without first having removed the plank from your own (Matthew 7:5). It's an admonition against hypocricy not a blanket prohibition of the use of the word "fool".

Clete

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you choose to obey the masters will it is not your will but the masters

If you choose to obey the master's will, you are choosing from your own will to do what the master wants you to do.
The alternative is to rebel against the master.
The choice of obeying or rebelling is the free-will choice.

Who would choose to be a prodigal? Choose to be a son and inherit the masters will.

Maybe you missed it.
The prodigal was more honored than the son in the story.
The prodigal chose to rebel and leave and then chose to come back as a servant if his father would only accept him as a servant.
The other son did not leave but rebelled against his father's will anyway.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, I do not assume it.

Of course you do.
You can't see the difference between temptation and sin.

In the wilderness Christ was tempted and by being tempted by satan, Christ did not conceive the sin, he refused it by stating the will of the Father and by doing so Christ Himself was not tempted. There's a difference between someone tempting you and you being tempted. Christ was not tempted even though satan tried to tempt Him. Can you see the difference?

You are trying to make a difference where there is none.

Hebrews 4:15 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Christ had not yet given His life for sin.

That is the point.
There were righteous people in the Old Testament who refused sin without knowing Christ.
Even Paul talks about righteous Gentiles who don't know Christ.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, it doesn't.

Then it wasn't necessary!

You seem to be very confused if you think that God orchestrating things is the only criteria for things to be necessary.
That sounds like you have been affected by the poison of Calvinism.

I responded to your own words. The entire thread is still here for everyone to read.

The thread shows that you responded to your own misunderstandings, not to what I actually said.

Welcome to my now grotesquely crowded ingore list.

The problem with putting the truth on your ignore list is that you can only hear the lies of the enemy and never hear the truth.
Good luck with that.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't suffer fools lightly

Then stop being one.

I don't appreciate having my time wasted.

You are the only one wasting your time in a pursuit of non-truth.

I find it amuzing that people tell me to stop calling people fools but I never ever see those same people telling people to stop being foolish.

That is because you are the one being foolish, but you refuse to hear about it.

Jesus was telling hypocrites to keep their mouths shut.

You should listen to what Jesus was saying.

 

[beloved57]

The Fall was necessary in that God through it had determined that the redeemed would be conformed into the image of Christ His Son Rom 8:28-30

²⁸ And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

²⁹ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

³⁰ Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.


As the redeemed bare the image of the earthy, natural, they shall bare the greater image of the Spiritual, Heavenly 1 Cor 15:49

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Now Christs image has the preeminence over adams Col 1:18


And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.460

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Fall was necessary in that God through it had determined that the redeemed would be conformed into the image of Christ His Son Rom 8:28-30

Are you claiming that the only way for God to conform us believers into the image of His Son is for God to decree that billions of other people would go to hell?

 

[beloved57]

Are you claiming that the only way for God to conform us believers into the image of His Son is for God to decree that billions of other people would go to hell?

What did the post say ? Thats what Im saying

 

[JudgeRightly]

What did the post say ? Thats what Im saying

He's asking for clarification about what you said.

Don't be a troll.

 

[beloved57]

He's asking for clarification about what you said.

Don't be a troll.

No problem as soon as he acknowledges just what I stated. What are the points I made with scripture and how did I make them with scripture ? I already put my work in, making the post, so please dont dis it and expect me to just do more work. Put effort into it like I did

 

[Clete]

Sorry about the length of this post. Also, I had very little time for editing so forgive any misspelled words or other weird typos.

You, as stated don't need my approval but I am asking for approval and it really doesn't matter what i think, it does however matter to me what you think.

I was in a particularly snarky mood yesterday. My whole post was more or less like this and I went and rewrote most of it and over looked this first sentence. I'd have probably just deleted it entirely and left it alone.

He was to me talking about me. Why is Paul not talking about you?

You said that he was talking about "unregenerate man", which in no way describes neither Paul, you nor me! He definitely was talking about himself (and by extension all those who would believe his gospel, including you and me).

Exactly, but Paul is revealing the very truth of sin though hard to understand because it cuts deep to bring us to Christ.

Okay, but taking that passage to mean that we human being are "totally depraved" is just a contrivance and in direct conflict with a great deal of other scripture.

God's words are not secular and in this world only his words can define what he means or people can believe whatever they want and it is normal but that's not what we should be looking for.

Holy cow are you on dangerous ground here with this! You've got to turn away from this thinking. I mean, seriously, that sentence could have come straight out of the mouth of any cult leader you care to name and more than that, it just isn't necessary to think this way.

It is not necessary to think like a lawyer when reading the bible. In fact, you WILL misunderstand it if you try to do so. It's much more effective to just simply read it and take it to mean what it seems to mean. If you're in doubt about what something means then read it to an average third grader and ask him to tell you what it means. He will almost certainly get it right. There are passages that are more difficult than other and Romans 7:17-21 isn't the easiest passage in the whole bible so maybe you'd want to find a home-schooled third grader to read it to but the point is that the bible is not written in some sort of secret code where you have to be privy to a special insider lexicon of the English language to order to understand. It is written to regular people in regular language and most precepts in the bible are repeated and retaught in various ways so that we thick headed humans can get it. Even those who are grossly wrong on a great deal of details usually get the really important bits right enough to gain their salvation precisely because God has made it so plain that it's hard to miss.

Further, it has been my experience over decades of theological discussion and debate that people who want to have a special "biblical" definition for an otherwise perfectly mundane, easily understood, normal English word, do so because of their doctrine, not because there is any grammatical or contextual reason for it. Their special definitions are tactical in nature, used to preserve the integrity of their doctrine by making one or more problem texts say something that doesn't contradict their doctrine.

Having said all of that, there are exceptions. Most come in the form of poor translation into English but not all of them. But the exception proves the rule. Our default should be to take a word or passage to mean what it seems to mean and only do otherwise when there is real, demonstrable and substantively linguistic reasons to do otherwise.

I can't just leave at that because so many can be and have been deceived by definition.

If you feel compelled to alter the use of a word then just remember that it is your responsibility to communicate what you are saying in a way that your audience will understand you. People can't read your mind and they are going to assume the normal meaning of a word unless you specifically communicate otherwise. This is why it is best practice to use a modifier when modifying mundane words. Use "perfectly good" or "God good" or something other than just the naked "good" if what you mean is "perfect" because "good" and "perfect" are not normally synonyms.

I fear that the truth is this, there are no degrees of righteousness.

Well, fear not because there absolutely are!

In addition to the first several chapters of Revelation where Jesus is talking to and about the relative righteousness of various churches, there are also passages from Paul like I Corinthians 3:9-15.

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

How do you get so hung up on one word and miss the whole rest of the passage? What sense does any of that make if there aren't any righteous people in the world? How can God make the sun rise on the evil and the good if there is no one who is good?

That very same chapter of the bible begins with the Beatitudes. How can the poor in spirit be blessed if there aren't any who are poor in the spirit? How can those who hunger and thirst for righteousness be filled if there are no such persons?

How is the Father perfect? The father is perfect in all things and perfectly good which means we are not perfectly good nor can we be by definition unless we are God.

But that isn't the point! Jesus is not telling His audience to do something that He knows that is impossible! It's a figure of speech, Cntrysner!

Jesus also told His followers that they if they didn't hate their parents and their family that there was no place for them in the Kingdom. Do you think that Jesus was actually telling people that if they didn't ignore the 6th commandment that they'd be expelled from the Kingdom? No! Of course not! It was a figure of speech, the meaning of which is made clear by the context.

There is no good in the flesh, no not one, concerning man and this is what the scriptures revealed to me and I accept that revelation and by that truth I was left with no option but to choose Christ and by my choice I became a slave to righteousness in Christ. By that I mean I had to die to myself to be able to be a servant of the righteous One.

Okay fine but you didn't answer the question. When you say "there is none good" do you mean "perfectly good" as the bible does, or are you suggesting that there no way that anyone can do anything good whatsoever - period?

The latter just cannot be the case, biblically speaking. There's just way too many people who do good things throughout the bible, some believer others not. Not sufficiently good to earn salvation or to sit next to God by any means but, good nonetheless. Adam's first born is just one glaringly obvious and undeniable example...

Matthew 23:35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.​

At this time I don't see my confusion and it is not my redefinition.

Of course you see it!

Our entire discussion has been spurred almost entirely by your use of the word "good" as though it were synonymous with the word "perfect".

I'm not even saying that the two words can't be synonymous in some cases but you seem to want to say that "good" always means "perfect" anywhere one finds it in the bible and that just isn't so.

Paul is saying in Romans that only being a servant to God's will in Christ and being bestowed Spiritual circumcision can he do what is good.

No, that's your doctrinal interpretation, not what the text says.

There are unbelievers who do good. There were thousands of Jews who lived under the law and had exactly no concept whatsoever of "spiritual circumcision" who did good all the time and there those who lived before the law was even given that Jesus Himself tells us who were righteous.

Have no idea and no.

Yeah, I figured that out on my own. I spent most of the day yesterday thinking that it really didn't make sense for me to have even asked.

I'm trying to come from God's Word and headed to be able to deliver it with my insufficient ability.

Well, my question resulted from my having gotten the idea that you were perhaps suggesting that there are those Christians who have been spiritually circumcised to a degree that permits them to live their lives without sinning. That's a Nazarene Church teaching but, like I said, I figured out that you couldn't have been heading there anyway so it's a moot question.

I am learning from you Clete and count you as a friend. Iron sharpens iron.

Hey! Right back at ya!

God bless you!

Clete

 

[Clete]

No problem as soon as he acknowledges just what I stated. What are the points I made with scripture and how did I make them with scripture ? I already put my work in, making the post, so please dont dis it and expect me to just do more work. Put effort into it like I did

This is a lie!

This is a flat out intentional lie!

Just answer his question, blasphemy57!

Are you scared of your own doctrine? Would you like me to answer his question for you?

 

[genuineoriginal]

No problem as soon as he acknowledges just what I stated. What are the points I made with scripture and how did I make them with scripture ? I already put my work in, making the post, so please dont dis it and expect me to just do more work. Put effort into it like I did

I have put in effort in this thread trying to explain how God gave us the free-will to choose whether we will obey Him or whether we will rebel against Him and refuse to obey.

Malachi 3:16-18 16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. 17 And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. 18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.​

God chooses who will be saved based on what He sees in how we live our lives.
He chooses to save the ones that have chosen to serve Him, that talk often about Him, and spend their time thinking about Him.
In other words, God chooses to save those that love Him from their own free-will.

The fall is not necessary to conform us to the image of His Son, since God created mankind in His Own image in Genesis 1.
The only thing the fall does is give us the necessary proof that God did not create robots that have no ability to deviate from the program He designed.
The fall gives us the necessary proof that mankind was created with free-will and is not following some predetermined script.