Was sin inevitable?

[miz3]

The only way you can defend your theory is to say that God is the author of rape, murder, incest, adultery and that in fact we have no ability to choose. We are simply robots that God programmed in which case we're not responsible if we sin or not and hence God can not send us to hell.

I will continue quote Scripture.

In that vein see again Romans chapter nine. Romans chapter nine says you are wrong. That indeed when Adam sinned we were indeed programed for sin and it is impossible for humans to do anything else but to sin. The whole book of Romans is predicated on that Principle where God declared by fiat that all of Adam's children would be sinful and thus even before they did anything wrong they were "children of God's Wrath". In other words God declared by fiat that all humans would be ruled by their "sinful nature" and they could do nothing about it but "sin". That is why we are born as slaves to the "sinful nature" which God by fiat declared would rule over us and humans would not be able to extricate themselves from this slavery.

Only the Power of God can free us and God did.

In addition according to Romans chapter five also by God's fiat God through Jesus Christ declared all humans Justified and thus Righteous. Thus, as Paul points out in Romans God/Jesus Christ by their Power Alone freed humans from slavery to the "sinful nature" and began the process to make all humans slaves to God/Jesus Christ through the "Spiritual Nature" (see Romans chapter eight).

Humans had nothing to do with either the declaration of Death and the declaration of Justification and the Work to make us slaves to God/Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit in the "Spiritual Nature".

Like Romans chapter nine states we are just a lump of clay. The Book of Genesis also states that humans are a "lump of clay".

God is the Potter.

You like every other human who has ever lived has toooooo high opinion of humanity and their abilities to be anything more than a "lump of clay". Your theory makes humans the "lynch pin" of Salvation.

God/Jesus Christ is the only lynch pin of Salvation. Humans had and will always have nothing to do with it. Salvation is a FREE GIFT from God apart from anything any human could do. We just "lumps of clay" that is what the Bible and the Bible only teaches.

God indeed did it all by Fiat.

Second God does not need a "reason" to send us to Hell. God can do what He wants with His Property and His Creation. The FACT that God has made a way for us not to be sent to Hell is a gift. We humans did absolutely NOTHING to receive this pardon from Hell.

Who makes God accountable for anything God does? Anything that would make God "accountable" would be greater than God because God would then be "accountable"/under the authority of that entity.

This is why those who say that God is "accountable" to humans is nothing more than the "sinful nature" in humanity which seeks to make the human entity over God and God better stay in line with what humans think is justice or God will be declared unfair.

Paul covers this too in Romans chapter nine by stating "who are you the created one to be questioning God and deciding what is fair or not fair".

This is why Paul quotes the OT when in Romans Chapter nine he says God has declared:

"I will have mercy on who I have mercy on, and I will not have mercy on whom I will not have mercy".

What do you think these words mean?

Third I find it amazing that you believe that God is at the mercy of "chance"/"randomness" and that God must deal with such.

Why is your god tooooooo small that he would be under those things? Who created "chance"/"randomness" or were these things always in existence and thus they are the real "eternal ones" and not God? In fact do "chance"/"randomness" actually exist at all?

Does this mean that the Universe is really like the evolutionist's claim, "Chaotic" by being subject to the "law of chance and randomness"?

Why is your god a slave to such chaos as "chance"/"randomness"? Why do you make humans to rule over your god so that he must conform to their view of what is fair or these humans would rather die than serve this fake god of yours.?

Who decides what is "fair"? Who defines what is "fair"?

[Neil D]

Wow...Look at the knits being picked....you guys want to just argue...

We teach, if I understand it correctly, that if only Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, the world would not be in the mess it is today. Was it possible for them to have remained sinless? If they hadn't sinned at the moment they did, was it inevitable that they would have sinned eventually? If they never sinned, how would the great controversy have been concluded for all eternity?

LD

What do we know from our sources, the bible and EGW?

According to EGW, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the test on our planet. We know that the test was the obedience to God in that Adam and Eve were not to eat of the tree. The tree was the temptation.

We know that Satan was limited to one physcial place, that is, he was allowed access at the tree. It was from here that he could tempt A & E in any way that he wanted to...He could have held a discussion on why they should have eaten, why the knowledge of good and evil was superior to thier current knowledge, why God imposed such a commandment,....but Satan didn't do it that way...

Apparently, birds and other animals did not have that imposition of staying away from that tree. They could wonder around and thru it without problems....

We also know that there was a whole planet that was yet to be explored and to be experienced. We know that there were other places that were beautiful to see...We know that there were other trees to eat from...peach tree, mango trees, figs, orange trees...

A&E was told that they could not eat from that one tree.

We are now arguing from a fallen nature. We have no clue what a non-fallen nature is, or what desires come out of that. We know that a self-less nature has different desires, different feelings, different values, experiences, and we wonder how A & E could have been so deceived so as to believe what that insane creature, satan, was saying...

We just know that a 10 year old child wouldn't fall for his deceptions without checking with his parents first...

And we assume that it must have been relatively soon after creation that A & E distrusted God enough to be persuaded by satan and his arguements....

If only A & E would have explored the world and talked with thier creator first and came to know and trust Him, then this world would have truely been a different place....

[miz3]

Wow...Look at the knits being picked....you guys want to just argue...

Originally Posted By: LynnDel

We teach, if I understand it correctly, that if only Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, the world would not be in the mess it is today. Was it possible for them to have remained sinless? If they hadn't sinned at the moment they did, was it inevitable that they would have sinned eventually? If they never sinned, how would the great controversy have been concluded for all eternity?

LD

What do we know from our sources, the bible and EGW?

According to EGW, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the test on our planet. We know that the test was the obedience to God in that Adam and Eve were not to eat of the tree. The tree was the temptation.

We know that Satan was limited to one physcial place, that is, he was allowed access at the tree. It was from here that he could tempt A & E in any way that he wanted to...He could have held a discussion on why they should have eaten, why the knowledge of good and evil was superior to thier current knowledge, why God imposed such a commandment,....but Satan didn't do it that way...

Apparently, birds and other animals did not have that imposition of staying away from that tree. They could wonder around and thru it without problems....

We also know that there was a whole planet that was yet to be explored and to be experienced. We know that there were other places that were beautiful to see...We know that there were other trees to eat from...peach tree, mango trees, figs, orange trees...

A&E was told that they could not eat from that one tree.

We are now arguing from a fallen nature. We have no clue what a non-fallen nature is, or what desires come out of that. We know that a self-less nature has different desires, different feelings, different values, experiences, and we wonder how A & E could have been so deceived so as to believe what that insane creature, satan, was saying...

We just know that a 10 year old child wouldn't fall for his deceptions without checking with his parents first...

And we assume that it must have been relatively soon after creation that A & E distrusted God enough to be persuaded by satan and his arguements....

If only A & E would have explored the world and talked with thier creator first and came to know and trust Him, then this world would have truely been a different place....

Notice that not one Bible text was cited as authority for this belief.

Only Ellen White was cited as to why this belief is what it is. I told you SDA use Ellen White as the pure foundation of all their beliefs and they see the Bible as secondary, if they use the Bible at all.

The proof is not in what SDA say.

The proof is in this very post by the poster who only quotes Ellen White as the Truth and why they believe the way they do. In other words the proof is in the SDA behavior which is ALL ELLEN WHITE.

Again, not a single Bible and Bible only text.

[Gibs]

The answer to the question is the answer to this question, why won't sin rise up again? Think about that one. Answer that question aright.

Na 1:9 What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[dialoguewithus]

To explain its presence based on our own understanding is impossible. For God, obviously, all has an explanation and a justification. Acts 17:24 The God Who makes the world and all that is in it... Ro. 8:20 For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation

[miz3]

The answer to the question is the answer to this question, why won't sin rise up again? Think about that one. Answer that question aright.

Na 1:9 What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

I agree.

Sounds to me like God is decreeing by fiat that He won't allow sin to arise again.

[phkrause]

Excellent points HB

[miz3]

Excellent points HB

How can it be "excellent points" when not one single Bible text was used?

Are you saying that you and HB have abandoned the Bible and now are using only Ellen White as the test of Truth?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Excellent points HB

How can it be "excellent points" when not one single Bible text was used?

Are you saying that you and HB have abandoned the Bible and now are using only Ellen White as the test of Truth?

Not one single EGW quote either.

What is happenin' here.

[John317]

Yes, it was possible for Adam and Eve to have been loyal to God and not sinned. It wasn't inevitable for them to sin. They were free moral agents with REAL choices.

[John317]

...Sounds to me like God is decreeing by fiat that He won't allow sin to arise again.

No, it isn't that God won't allow sin to arise again, but God knows that it won't happen again.

On the basis of what has already happened in the rebellion against God, the whole universe will have seen the terrible consequences of sin and will therefore know that God's ways are right and Satan's are wrong. The book of Revelation gives us strong evidence that sin will come to a final and complete end. According to Rev. 20: 14, death itself is thrown into the lake of fire, a clear representation of the fact that death will no longer exist in all God's universe.

Rev. 19:2

for [God's] judgments are true and just;

for he has judged the great prostitute

who corrupted the earth with her immorality,

and has avenged on her the blood of his servants."

Rev. 15:3-4

And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

"Great and amazing are your deeds,

O Lord God the Almighty!

Just and true are your ways,

O King of the nations!

[4] Who will not fear, O Lord,

and glorify your name?

For you alone are holy.

All nations will come

and worship you,

for your righteous acts have been revealed."

Rev. 21:3-5

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [4] He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

[5] And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

[Neil D]

Notice that not one Bible text was cited as authority for this belief.

Only Ellen White was cited as to why this belief is what it is. I told you SDA use Ellen White as the pure foundation of all their beliefs and they see the Bible as secondary, if they use the Bible at all.

The proof is not in what SDA say.

The proof is in this very post by the poster who only quotes Ellen White as the Truth and why they believe the way they do. In other words the proof is in the SDA behavior which is ALL ELLEN WHITE.

Again, not a single Bible and Bible only text.

This is a gross mistatement....I said that our sources were the Bible and EGW. I then parapharased both sources as to what SDAs believe.

I give you permission to show where the bible and EGW conflicts with each other...

And, btw, Since I know LynDell, and also know that she is a member in good standing within the SDA church, and since she asked this question to an SDA audiance on an SDA forum, I answer her in typical SDA fashion...with our sources of both Bible and EGW. If you want to side track this thread, continue to rant your rave...However, if I was moderator, and for just plain good internet ettiquett, I would recommend that you start another similar thread, but specifically limit it to just the Bible...that is, IF i was moderator......

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

How can it be "excellent points" when not one single Bible text was used?

Are you saying that you and HB have abandoned the Bible and now are using only Ellen White as the test of Truth?

Not one single EGW quote either.

What is happenin' here.

When HB made his quote he used Ellen White quotes to make his points and did not use even a single Biblical text to make his points.

[Neil D]

When HB made his quote he used Ellen White quotes to make his points and did not use even a single Biblical text to make his points.

Quote? What quote?

[Woody]

Quote:

When HB made his quote he used Ellen White quotes to make his points and did not use even a single Biblical text to make his points.

I'm sorry - but like I said - I can't find ANY quotes of ANY kind from HB . I fear your dislike of Adventists is causing you to hallucinate.

[miz3]

Wow...Look at the knits being picked....you guys want to just argue...

Originally Posted By: LynnDel

We teach, if I understand it correctly, that if only Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, the world would not be in the mess it is today. Was it possible for them to have remained sinless? If they hadn't sinned at the moment they did, was it inevitable that they would have sinned eventually? If they never sinned, how would the great controversy have been concluded for all eternity?

LD

What do we know from our sources, the bible and EGW?

According to EGW, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the test on our planet. We know that the test was the obedience to God in that Adam and Eve were not to eat of the tree. The tree was the temptation.

We know that Satan was limited to one physcial place, that is, he was allowed access at the tree. It was from here that he could tempt A & E in any way that he wanted to...He could have held a discussion on why they should have eaten, why the knowledge of good and evil was superior to thier current knowledge, why God imposed such a commandment,....but Satan didn't do it that way...

Apparently, birds and other animals did not have that imposition of staying away from that tree. They could wonder around and thru it without problems....

We also know that there was a whole planet that was yet to be explored and to be experienced. We know that there were other places that were beautiful to see...We know that there were other trees to eat from...peach tree, mango trees, figs, orange trees...

A&E was told that they could not eat from that one tree.

We are now arguing from a fallen nature. We have no clue what a non-fallen nature is, or what desires come out of that. We know that a self-less nature has different desires, different feelings, different values, experiences, and we wonder how A & E could have been so deceived so as to believe what that insane creature, satan, was saying...

We just know that a 10 year old child wouldn't fall for his deceptions without checking with his parents first...

And we assume that it must have been relatively soon after creation that A & E distrusted God enough to be persuaded by satan and his arguements....

If only A & E would have explored the world and talked with thier creator first and came to know and trust Him, then this world would have truely been a different place....

Here is what you posted HB.

Notice your first phrase after your question.

"According to EGW"

Then you cite only facts from Ellen White.

FACTS cited:

1. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a test-------The Bible does not say that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a test.

2. Satan was limited to one physical place-------Again not Biblical because we have satan in the story of Job gathering in Heaven with others. The Bible does not say that during this time period that satan was limited to this place.

3. The birds and other created creatures could have access to this tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil--------The Bible says nothing about this at all.

4. That Adam and Eve had not explored the rest of the world is also not found in the Bible. The Bible is silent on this point.

5. That Adam and Eve were told to not eat from the tree is in the Bible but you do not:

a. Quote the Bible and/or say that you got this fact from the Bible.

b. Your opening point says, "According to EGW,". You did not say according to Ellen White and the Bible.

Thus, we have to conclude that all your points as coming from Ellen White only.

You do not ever mention that any facts actually come from the Bible.

6. From your post you say:

"We are now arguing from a fallen nature. We have no clue what a non-fallen nature is, or what desires come out of that. We know that a self-less nature has different desires, different feelings, different values, experiences, and we wonder how A & E could have been so deceived so as to believe what that insane creature, satan, was saying...

We just know that a 10 year old child wouldn't fall for his deceptions without checking with his parents first...

And we assume that it must have been relatively soon after creation that A & E distrusted God enough to be persuaded by satan and his arguements....

If only A & E would have explored the world and talked with thier creator first and came to know and trust Him, then this world would have truely been a different place....

None of this is a paraphrase of either Ellen White or the Bible.

This is your own human conclusions.

Thus the bottom line is that you "paraphrase" and/or get your conclusions totally from Ellen White just as I said.

The clear analysis of your post which I cited unchanged shows that you are wrong.

7. I must apologize to Woody because he was correct that there were no "direct quotes" from Ellen White. I will apologize to Woody directly in another post as well as in this post.

There were only paraphrase/ideas that came from Ellen White and none that came from the Bible because your first phrase says, "according to Ellen White". That means you intended that everything that followed after that came from Ellen White.

8. Do you now want to "clarify" what you intended for us to understand about your post?

[LynnDel]

I think your point has been thoroughly and repeatedly made, miz3. At some point it is wise to say, "The defense rests," because if you repeat yourself too much, you will lose readership. Thanks for your input, you and everyone else. I will take some time - when I have the time - to weigh the responses.

LD

[miz3]

Quote:

When HB made his quote he used Ellen White quotes to make his points and did not use even a single Biblical text to make his points.

I'm sorry - but like I said - I can't find ANY quotes of ANY kind from HB . I fear your dislike of Adventists is causing you to hallucinate.

Woody, I must profusely apologize to you.

You are correct there were no Ellen White direct quotes either.

I am not hallucinating I just made a big mistake in stating that they were direct quotes. However the ideas cited were from Ellen White and not the Bible.

Second I do not hate SDA and/or the SDA Church .org. What I hate is:

1. The canonization of Ellen White.

2. The duplicitous claim that the SDA Church .org is a Bible and Bible only Church.

3. The blatant corruption within the SDA Church .org.

4. The insistence that the SDA Church .org is a Prophetic Church of Destiny and that as such their doctrine of Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment/1844 and some other theological issues that they fail to admit wrongness in.

Again I apologize.

[Neil D]

Your responses in black, My responses in blue.

Here is what you posted HB.

Notice your first phrase after your question.

"According to EGW"

Then you cite only facts from Ellen White.Please note, I noted "sources which included the bible and EGW".

FACTS cited:

1. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a test-------The Bible does not say that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a test.

Then why the command "not to eat of it"? Are you disputing that the tree was a test? Are you also arguing that the tree was not tempting? If so, then why did Eve find the fruit of that tree "pleasing to the eyes"? PLease, argue with the bible...not with me...

2. Satan was limited to one physical place-------Again not Biblical because we have satan in the story of Job gathering in Heaven with others. The Bible does not say that during this time period that satan was limited to this place.Two point being made her. My context is talking about the tree as being the place on planet earth where Satan can induce temptation at the time.

And the bible says that Satan, "that old serpent" was at the garden. And he is also known as the temptor. And since you are so hot to trot, YOU go look it up in a concordance.Since the answer was directed at Lyndel and she is not disputing this, her point is not the validity of where SDAs get thier source of truth.

3. The birds and other created creatures could have access to this tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil--------The Bible says nothing about this at all.

Some of it...obviously, serpents were allowed to climb the trees, and if this creature that crawled on land/trees was able to, surely animals that flew were able, since they were made at least a day or two before the fall of man. To say that the bible is silent on this subject of animals being allowed to roost in a tree, is to deny what birds do now. More to the point, the bible doesn't say that NO Birds landed on any tree during the Eden story and it doesn't say that they landed/roosted on any tree. To argue this point is rather rediculous since birds do roost in trees, something that most 4 year olds will tell you that they have seen..

4. That Adam and Eve had not explored the rest of the world is also not found in the Bible. The Bible is silent on this point. This point is to show that by exploring the world, A & E would have gained in the knowledge of God, since, currently there are wonders in the world to see, thus forcing them to be far more aquainted with thier Creator. This point was made to indicate the how short the time span between creation and the fall. If they were well aquainted with God, they would have known God better, and then understood and trusted Him before they acted upon any advise that the Serpent would have brought forth.

5. That Adam and Eve were told to not eat from the tree is in the Bible but you do not:

a. Quote the Bible and/or say that you got this fact from the Bible.

b. Your opening point says, "According to EGW,". You did not say according to Ellen White and the Bible.

Thus, we have to conclude that all your points as coming from Ellen White only.

You do not ever mention that any facts actually come from the Bible. Sarcastic mode-on- Are you trying to tell me that you didn't know that story or the wording actually came from the bible? Specifically, you didn't know the story of the fall of mankind??? Because if you don't know, I am going to suggest that you read Genesis, chapter 2&3...AndJust because I embellished on the creation story doesn't mean that I am seeking the nomination for "Prophet of the month" or "Inspired writer of the month". SO WHAT?!?!?!? As I have said, this is an SDA forum, for SDAs, and SDAs answer questions that SDA have asked. You, OTOH, have demonstrated some very rude ettiquet and highjacked Lyndel's thread.

6. From your post you say:

[snip]

None of this is a paraphrase of either Ellen White or the Bible.

This is your own human conclusions.

And again, I ask you, SO WHAT?!?!!? You didn't ask Lyndell if you could altar the thread, you didn't ask permission from any of us, you just display some very rude behavior, to which, prolly needs to be reported to the moderator.

Thus the bottom line is that you "paraphrase" and/or get your conclusions totally from Ellen White just as I said.

The clear analysis of your post which I cited unchanged shows that you are wrong.

The clear analysis shows that I am not talking to you in the first place. If I had, I would have directed my comments in another way. As such, since I am SDA, I have posted to an SDA, who was asking a question to SDAs. And I responded in like kind.

I would appreciate it if you would take your question and start another thread bearing the problem that you are responding to. To NOT do so, is to display trollish behavior...something that the moderators do not take litely here....

[Gibs]

Here is a little on this from EGW. I think there is a better one on this and if I find it soon will paste it here.,

Fall Broke Golden Chain of Obedience.--Adam yielded to temptation and as we have the matter of sin and its consequence laid so distinctly before us, we can read from cause to effect and see the greatness of the act is not that which constitutes sin; but the disobedience of God's expressed will, which is a virtual denial of God, refusing the laws of His government. . . . {1BC 1083.8}

The fall of our first parents broke the golden chain of implicit obedience of the human will to the divine. Obedience has no longer been deemed an absolute necessity. The human agents follow their own imaginations which the Lord said of the inhabitants of the old world was evil and that continually (MS 1, 1892). {1BC 1083.9}

Adam: Temptation Removed as Far as Possible.--The plan of salvation was so arranged that when Adam was tested, temptation was removed from him as far as possible. When Adam was tempted, he was not hungry (ST April 4, 1900). {1BC 1084.1}

Man a Free Agent.--God had power to hold Adam back from touching the forbidden fruit; but had He done this, Satan would have been sustained in his charge against God's arbitrary rule. Man would not have been a free moral agent, but a mere machine (RH June 4, 1901). {1BC 1084.2}

Every Inducement to Remain Loyal.--It certainly was not God's purpose that man should be sinful. He made Adam pure and noble, with no tendency to evil. He placed him in Eden, where he had every inducement to remain loyal and obedient. The law was placed around him as a safeguard. (Ibid.). {1BC 1084.3}

It was willful disobedience on Adam's part and Eve was taken in and deceived and gave over to a lie.

No it didn't need to happen but was a liability because man was to be a free agent able to choose to obey or not to.

Proof is in the fact the unfallen worlds did not disobey.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[miz3]

I think your point has been thoroughly and repeatedly made, miz3. At some point it is wise to say, "The defense rests," because if you repeat yourself too much, you will lose readership. Thanks for your input, you and everyone else. I will take some time - when I have the time - to weigh the responses.

LD

OK, Lynn Del.

I was not aware that this thread was meant for SDA Church .org responses only. I thought, it appears erroneously that anyone was free to respond. If you intended it be an SDA Church .org discussion only then apologize for being involved.

I thought erroneously that you were interested in finding a truthful answer not just the SDA Church .org answer.

[Windsor]

If the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not a test, then what is the official miz.org belief?

[miz3]

If the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not a test, then what is the official miz.org belief?

Since I believe that "sin was inevitable" then the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" was a stumbling block to Adam and Eve.

God didn't have to put this "stumbling block" in the way of Adam and Eve.

Where in the Bible is it "written" that God needed to test Adam and Eve? Book, Chapter and verse please.

By the way there is no "miz .org". There is only miz3. If others agree with me that is fine. However, I do not lead a people/organization thus, no miz .org.