Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know you are searching for truth Scott. I apologize for implying otherwise.
Is he though? I really don't believe he is. I believe he thinks he already has it and trying to "defend" what he already holds as the truth. If he was seriously searching for the Truth then I don't see how he could continue to make some of the statements that he has made. Remember when I was searching for the Truth on Universal Salvation? Did I not carefully acknowledge God's Word and admit that I was defeated on defending annihilationism and embraced Universal Salvation? I didn't do what Scott does. I didn't just disregard those scriptures. I actually had to work them out and remove contradiction until I found that Universal Salvation fit the scriptures.
Is he though? I really don't believe he is. I believe he thinks he already has it and trying to "defend" what he already holds as the truth. If he was seriously searching for the Truth then I don't see how he could continue to make some of the statements that he has made. Remember when I was searching for the Truth on Universal Salvation? Did I not carefully acknowledge God's Word and admit that I was defeated on defending annihilationism and embraced Universal Salvation? I didn't do what Scott does. I didn't just disregard those scriptures. I actually had to work them out and remove contradiction until I found that Universal Salvation fit the scriptures.
Paul
Well, I think what can happen is this. We all see or think we see certain evidence for something. And we weight various pieces of evidence by how clearly we see (or think we see) them. I think Scott senses very strong evidence for what he believes and even if there are scriptures that he can not fully explain, or seem to directly contradict on the surface, he thinks there must be a good explanation based that the things he already senses to be so clearly and absolutely true. In the big picture of the whole thing, that doesn't mean anyone is not seeking the truth, it just means we are convinced.
I think we all have to resist the temptation of judging the hearts of others based on what they do not see and seem to refuse to see, the things that seem so clear to us.
Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Last edited by Thy Kingdom Come; 08-24-2009 at 12:54 PM..
I already admitted that (1) could be accomplished without man ever being disobedient.
Bob you have yet to answer this question.
While if it could be accomplished without man ever being disobedient, do you still beleive that Adam could not eat from the tree of life, but had to be disobedient because God planned for him to be disobedient in order to experience good and evil?
You still haven't explianed WHY it would be sin to bring many sons to glory by creating and requiring an evil experience VS just requiring an evil experience. In both cases God requires saints to go through evil.
I have tried to answer it Bob, creating evil is contrary to Gods Holy nature and that is the difference between the two. We experience evil not just for ourselves but for others and that is in part one of the reason God created man to begin with.
Question what do you see as the reason God created man?
Well, I think what can happen is this. We all see or think we see certain evidence for something. And we weight various pieces of evidence by how clearly we see (or think we see) them. I think Scott senses very strong evidence for what he believes and even if there are scriptures that he can not fully explain, or seem to directly contradict on the surface, he thinks there must be a good explanation based that the things he already senses to be so clearly and absolutely true. In the big picture of the whole thing, that doesn't mean anyone is not seeking the truth, it just means we are convinced.
Well hopefully God gives him the understanding to see the contradictions he is embracing.
No, I didn't understand them all. But I also didn't tell anyone "you're wrong" until I had an answer to all of them.
Yes, but before I had an answer for every one of them, I remained in the not-fully-decided mode.
I am not telling anyone they are wrong Bob, I only put forth a different understanding but of course, both understanding cannot be right.
And I am not fully decided YET but lean heavily towards what I am seeing, the same way I did when God first showed me the restitution of all things.
The reason I bring these things up is not to defend, but in order for iron to sharpen iron.
One of two things will happen, either what I see will be strengthened or it will prove to be in error.
Was just reading a bit more through Augustine of Hippo's Freewill and Grace writing and wanted to quote a bit of it:
--------------------------------
When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,” Zechariah 1:3 one of these clauses— that which invites our return to God— evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. Here, possibly, the Pelagians think they have a justification for their opinion which they so prominently advance, that God's grace is given according to our merits. In the East, indeed, that is to say, in the province of Palestine, in which is the city of Jerusalem, Pelagius, when examined in person by the bishop, did not venture to affirm this. For it happened that among the objections which were brought up against him, this in particular was objected, that he maintained that the grace of God was given according to our merits,— an opinion which was so diverse from catholic doctrine, and so hostile to the grace of Christ, that unless he had anathematized it, as laid to his charge, he himself must have been anathematized on its account. He pronounced, indeed, the required anathema upon the dogma, but how insincerely his later books plainly show; for in them he maintains absolutely no other opinion than that the grace of God is given according to our merits. Such passages do they collect out of the Scriptures—like the one which I just now quoted, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,”— as if it were owing to the merit of our turning to God that His grace were given us, wherein He Himself even turns unto us. Now the persons who hold this opinion fail to observe that, unless our turning to God were itself God's gift, it would not be said to Him in prayer, “Turn us again, O God of hosts;” and, “You, O God, wilt turn and quicken us;” and again, “Turn us, O God of our salvation,” — with other passages of similar import, too numerous to mention here. For, with respect to our coming unto Christ, what else does it mean than our being turned to Him by believing? And yet He says: “No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” John 6:65
-----------------------------------
That portion fits so well with this subject of co-savior theology and totally denounces it. Augustine is stating there how EVEN the TURNING from our ways is a GIFT from God and that we cannot take credit for it as he argues against the Pelagians who apparently preached co-savior theology.
While if it could be accomplished without man ever being disobedient, do you still beleive that Adam could not eat from the tree of life, but had to be disobedient because God planned for him to be disobedient in order to experience good and evil?
I do not like the phrase "had to" it does not accurately reflect what I beleive. A curious child does not "have to" explore, he wants to explore because it is his nature. God does not "have to" freely love us. God wants and chooses to freely love us because it is his nature. The rich young ruler did not "have to" not sell all and give to the poor. He did not want to and chose not to. His heart was simply not there yet, and only God could bring him there. Hence Christ saying with man it is impossible, but with God it is possible.
Likewise Adam did not "have to" not eat of the TOL. Adam did not want to and chose not to. The reason Adam did not want to is I believe this:
Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
"We" being natural man before God has opened our eyes to truly see Him by writing His law on our hearts.
The logical argument I put forward for the necessity of evil was like this:
1. We are to take up our cross and follow Christ
2. Implies we are to endure evil
3. Implies the existence of evil is necessary
I agree that that argument alone does not necessitate Adam to sin. It only necessitates that evil exist.
Nevertheless, I believe that Adam was not of a heart/mind to eat of the TOL and I believe God intended as much. I beleive that for other reasons outside of the above argument.
I don't know of even one scripture that contradicts God intending man to sin.
I only know of theological arguments of the form:
1. God is righteous
2. God can not do anything evil
3. Therefore God can not create evil or intend evil to happen.
1 & 2 are true. 3 is assumes without scriptural basis that it is an evil act for God to intend evil, in spite of all the places God brings evil for various reasons. Somehow those reasons justify God bringing evil in your mind (e.g. widows and leppers didn't seek God) yet if God had other reasons from the beginning for intending evil, then God is evil. Seems inconsistent to me.
reason A (widows & leppers did not seek God) -- God can intend evil upon man without being evil Himself
reason B (God wanted man to experience God's mercy) -- God can not intend evil upon man without being evil Himself
So it seems to me that you are deciding what reasons are good enough for God to intend evil.
Last edited by Thy Kingdom Come; 08-24-2009 at 02:18 PM..
Well, I think what can happen is this. We all see or think we see certain evidence for something. And we weight various pieces of evidence by how clearly we see (or think we see) them. I think Scott senses very strong evidence for what he believes and even if there are scriptures that he can not fully explain, or seem to directly contradict on the surface, he thinks there must be a good explanation based that the things he already senses to be so clearly and absolutely true. In the big picture of the whole thing, that doesn't mean anyone is not seeking the truth, it just means we are convinced.
I think we all have to resist the temptation of judging the hearts of others based on what they do not see and seem to refuse to see, the things that seem so clear to us.
Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Bob, I think that verse reflects on those that are learning and that do seek the Truth but haven't yet learned all to know on each subject. In other words they are conforming as opposed to those other that irrationally are rejecting.
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Those that continue in doctrines that are contrary are to be avoided. At some point we have to conclude that some reasoning is irrational in light of the scriptures, especially when pursued with a contenious spirit not for edification but more for the debate that we are told is a work of the flesh.
Paul
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
