Board index ‹ Sin

[Paradoxical]

I did not mean to offend you. The tone of the 2nd half of your response seems to imply I did offend you. If this is the case I sincerely apologize. I appreciate the time taken out of your day to answer and reply to these questions/comments and in no way intended to attack you or your beliefs.

>First of all, the system did not yet exist when the plan was initiated, and secondly, God is incapable of creating a system characterized by defect (James 1.17; Gen. 1.1-2.3).

Theres a few holes in the logic here.

You can not logically have a plan before infrastructure. Your examples are flawed as well. You are comparing God's plan before anything, to man's preparation to prevent historical precedence from reoccurring. Completely different situations. A more reasonable analogy would be a man buying material to repair a fault in the house he has yet to build. Why would the man not just build the house correctly the first time? Why prepare for the fallout when you can prevent in the first place?

> We have to acknowledge that there was knowledge on God's part that the human race would fall. Yet no logical reasoning necessitates that knowledge implies causality.

1.Except in the loaded gun example.Would not a parent at least take the clip out of the weapon? Would not a better parent hide and lock up the weapon? Sin was not possible if God did not put the tree in the garden. If I have knowledge of a loaded weapon within reach of my child, am I not accountable to remove the weapon before damage can be done? Under the logic you seem to be laying down, as long as I call an ambulance before the child goes into the room I am not in fault. After all I did warn the child not to touch the weapon. You are correct; Knowledge does not imply causality, but knowledge can and, in the loaded weapon example, does imply liability.

>There are zero that give the idea that God WANTED many to sin. Your reasoning shows signs of a priori reasoning: you are reading your interpretation into an event where it doesn't appear, and you hold to it lacking any evidence. That's not logic, it's bias and prejudice.

God told man not to kill.(Exodus 20:13) Later he tells men to slaughter man, women, child, and beast of the sinning Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). God not only wanted them to break a commandment but told them to do it.

2. If you reread my post, I hope you would see that I believe the author did intend to portray Jesus as before time. I was pretending to side with the absurd belief that the countless references to Jesus being uncreated, were false. This is black and white in my mind and as your citations reinforce.

>...the role of the Holy Spirit in guidance, and comprehension of free will.

I would ask why the Holy Spirit was guiding these men to compile an authentic bible but not guiding Adam away from the forbidden fruit. The analogy of: If your father has been to Chicago....Implies those in the council have read the complete bible before it was compiled. Which obviously is illogical and false. That analogy is silly at best and does not apply. If you're saying the holy ghost only gives information and leaves you to make your choices, which is what I believe you are saying: How do we know the authors of the bible listened to this advice to a T? After all Judas walked with Jesus and still betrayed him. Point being: Man falls flat on his face after walking with God, why wouldn't he do the same after only feeling the presence of God?

>Your last paragraph shows, in my opinion, a lack of understanding about the validity of counsel, the role of the Holy Spirit in guidance, and comprehension of free will.

Validity of council? I do not recall much if anything about that in the bible. I only found a few verses referencing Jewish councils during the time of Jesus. Almost all of which opposed Jesus. (Acts 5:27-39). Please show me what I missed or failed to find.
(John 16:14)& (1 Corinthians 12:1-11) Spell out pretty clearly what the Holy Spirit does.
What appears to not be taken into account in your reply are the effects of human nature and the exercise of free will. Judas walked with Jesus and betrayed him. Adam saw God and disobeyed him. Why would the invited attendees of this council not do the same?

I believe you misinterpreted what I said when it comes to free will. I stated " If God can and does step in or push us one way, then we truly have no free will" It was a conditional statement. IF God does NOT step in or push us one way, then we have free will.

I am accustomed to answers along the lines of: "Who are you to question Gods word/motive/character/plan" or "It comes down to faith". I appreciate your answers and how you avoid blanket "I dont feel like questioning anything" answers.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your patience in this conversation. I would be pleased to continue it. I wasn't offended by what you wrote, and apologize for coming across as if I were. It just didn't make any sense to me to build a case on a fallacious premise, so I'm sorry if i came across as either agitated or affronted. My bad.

> You can not logically have a plan before infrastructure.

It seems to me that I can, and I would be wise to do so. Yesterday there was an earthquake of 5 (Richter) in northern CA. Suppose I live on a fault line. I can devise a plan, which would certain involve a contingency strategy, before I even start to design my house on paper, knowing that there are reasonable odds of tectonic movement. Even though I may build my house with earthquake-resistant designs and materials, according to the best engineering and architecture available, before I built I understood the possibility and rough probabilities of seismic activity and therefore formulated a plan in the event of failure. Part of my plan certainly affects the way I build, but there's only so much I can do to preclude tragedy. The rest is beyond my control. So you see I'm not buying material to repair a fault in the house I have yet to build, but have a plan in the event of earthquake, knowing that the possibility inexorably exists. It's not a question of building it right the first time. The decisions of Adam and Eve were not within God's control, since they were beings of free will. He could only plan for the probability of failure.

> Would not a parent at least take the clip out of the weapon? Would not a better parent hide and lock up the weapon?

Of course a parent would. No reasonable parent would act any differently. But I still think your analogy isn't accurate to the situation.

> Sin was not possible if God did not put the tree in the garden.

Here's where you're off the mark. Sin was possible on many fronts. Let's play with a possibility. I happen to think the tree was a literal tree, but that's not absolutely necessary. Adam and Eve had many opportunities to sin against God. God put them in the garden to work it and care for it. Suppose A&E had said, "No, you twit, do it yourself." God asked Adam to name the animals. He could have refused. Suppose God had given Eve to him and he slapped her and said, "Now get my supper, wench." The opportunities for sin were rife. Sin wasn't dependent on the presence of the tree. So even if the tree wasn't literal, it still represents what was going on there. But maybe to see the Garden without the tree would help you to understand, according to my examples, that sin was always an option for a being who had a free will but not a nature incapable of sin. That's why I think your loaded gun analogy doesn't cut it. God wasn't putting a loaded gun there, and therefore He was liable for their misuse of it.

> God told man not to kill.(Exodus 20:13) Later he tells men to slaughter man, women, child, and beast of the sinning Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). God not only wanted them to break a commandment but told them to do it.

Just like in our society, and in every society, killing is not only justified but right in certain situations. Our legal system doesn't hold you liable for killing in self-defense, killing as an act of war, killing accidentally (as in "I turned around and bumped my friend and he fell off the cliff"), or capital punishment for crimes committed. It was no different then. Our courts have variations of liabilities for killing: homicide, manslaughter, second degree manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. We all understand the nuances. In Exodus 20.13, the root word is ratsach, meaning “Violent killing of a personal enemy; murder; slay; illegal killing inimical to the community; blood-vengeance killing; one who kills out of enmity, deceit, or hatred.” The command forbids acts of violence motivated by hatred or malice, and rejects the right of a person to take the law into his own hands out of a feeling of personal injury. The law clearly distinguished between planned and accidental or unpremeditated killings (Ex. 21.12-14). The prohibition isn't against all killing, only "unauthorized" killing.

> I would ask why the Holy Spirit was guiding these men to compile an authentic bible but not guiding Adam away from the forbidden fruit.

God did guide Adam away from the forbidden fruit. He clearly said, "You are NOT to eat this, and if you, you'll be doomed to death." It's really clear. And they understood it (Gn. 3.3).

> Implies those in the council have read the complete bible before it was compiled.

Since the analogy implies that God is the "father" in the story, it's safe to say that God, in his omniscience, knew what he wanted in the Bible before it was written. If you're talking about councils such as the Council of Nicea, the Bible was completed before the Holy Spirit guided them as to what to include and exclude. I'm not sure I'm understanding your point, but what I'm saying makes sense in both cases.

> If you're saying the holy ghost only gives information and leaves you to make your choices

That's exactly what I'm saying. The work of the Holy Spirit doesn't swarm over our free will and ability to choose. He can only guide, convict, or teach, but never force. We always have the choice to ignore or disobey.

> How do we know the authors of the bible listened to this advice to a T?

Excellent question! Thank you. The record of the Bible is that the Bible only contains the writings of those who listened to a T. 2 Pet. 1.21 lets us know that the HS didn't force the writers, but moved them, and they responded. Many places in the Bible note that they wrote what God had told them to. An analogy: you come into the retail store and want to know which items on the shelf were ordered and then stocked on the shelves. Well, they all were. That's what my store is. If something comes that I didn't order, I don't put it out. And if I ordered it, I put it out; that's why I ordered it, and it's here for sale. God spoke his Word, and when people wrote it down faithfully, it made the cut. That's why it's here.

> Validity of council?

Ah, you changed a word on me here. I said "counsel" meaning "advice." You changed it to "council" meaning "a legislative group of people assembled to process agendas." When the Holy Spirit counsels someone, he advised, guides, convicts, and teaches. That has nothing to do with Jewish councils or church councils.

> I believe you misinterpreted what I said when it comes to free will...

Here's the deal: God is ALWAYS stepping in and wooing us, trying to guide, "shepherd" us, motivate us, and influence us. Always. He never stops. But he can never force. He can only guide, woo, and try to influence. The decision always lies with us. Even with Jonah, Jonah always still had a choice. After the fish barfing on the beach (Jon. 2.10), Jonah could still have gotten up and said, "Nope!" and walked away. Check out Jonah 3.1-2. God talked to him again, and Jonah had to choose. Even with Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), God may have knocked him off his ride and onto his backside, but you hear and see Saul responding according to his own free will. God is always at work drawing people to himself. But he can't override our free will, ever, unless with our free will we say, "Do with me what you want." But then he's not really overriding our free will, is he?

> I am accustomed to answers along the lines of: "Who are you to question Gods word/motive/character/plan" or "It comes down to faith". I appreciate your answers and how you avoid blanket "I dont feel like questioning anything" answers.

Thanks. I never use those kinds of answers, because there are real answers to questions. I'm enjoying the conversation with you. Keep asking, and I'll be glad to keep talking.