The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

So let's break this down:

1] From the beginning, i.e., from the creation of Lucifer, both God & Christ knew that Lucifer would apostatize and become Satan, the adversary.

2] Neither God nor Christ established sin.  Lucifer turned Satan brought sin, i.e., the love of self, into existence.

3] Both God and Christ made provision to meet the problem, i.e.,  the gospel.

What Ellen White does not explain is why God and Christ created Lucifer anyway knowing that Their decision would cause enormous disaster and ruin of both men and beast.

 

Edited August 8, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

So let's break this down:

1] From the beginning, i.e., from the creation of Lucifer, both God & Christ knew that Lucifer would apostatize and become Satan, the adversary.

2] Neither God nor Christ established sin.  Lucifer turned Satan brought sin, i.e., the love of self, into existence.

3] Both God and Christ made provision to meet the problem, i.e.,  the gospel.

What Ellen White does not explain is why God and Christ created Lucifer anyway knowing that Their decision would cause enormous disaster and ruin of both men and beast.

 

However, elsewhere she gives us a clue:

Satan’s rebellion was to be a lesson to the universe through all coming ages, a perpetual testimony to the nature and terrible results of sin (singular). The working out of Satan’s rule (i.e., his love of self, iniquity), its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority (based on agape love). It would testify that with the existence of God’s government and His law is bound up the well-being of all the creatures He has made. Thus the history of this terrible experiment of rebellion was to be a perpetual safeguard to all holy intelligences, to prevent them from being deceived as to the nature of transgression, to save them from committing sin and suffering its punishments.”  (The Great Controversy, p. 498-499)

So the purpose of allowing Lucifer to develop his self-love was an experiment that was to be used as a lesson.  That's what I'm getting from reading the above.

The experiment revolved around Lucifer's claim that self-love was superior of God's selfless, agape love.  The lesson, which is something we learn, is in process.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Robert

[8thdaypriest]

God created sentient beings with free will, knowing that, given time without end, at some point one or more of them would choose to do things their own way.  (Earthly parents do the same - on a very limited scale.)

IF - God had created beings WITHOUT free will, then there would be NO LOVE.  God would remain UNLOVED. 

So there's the choice.  No love, OR an inevitable painful rebellion costing the lives of many created beings, and costing God infinite pain (Don't forget that!). 

A woman who chooses to conceive a child KNOWS that she will have to endure pain.  God knew that He would too. 

God chose to create angels and men. 

IF Satan had never rebelled, then all of the Universe would have remained peaceful - yes.  But created beings would NEVER HAVE KNOWN the depths of God's love for them.  There would have been NO CROSS. 

BECAUSE of the rebellion - we have the CROSS.  And all of saved creation will praise the Father and His Son, in a way NOT POSSIBLE without knowing of the cross. 

So don't say that the rebellion was all BAD.  It wasn't.  It resulted in a closer, fuller relationship with God our Father - for eternity.  If we judge HIM by the fruits of creating free will beings, then the fruits will far outweigh the pain - for those who choose to LOVE Him in return.

[Robert]

So what you are saying is it took sin to make our love for God more?  That makes sin a good thing....

Edited August 8, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

God created sentient beings with free will, knowing that, given time without end, at some point one or more of them would choose to do things their own way.

I disagree.  God created both angels and mankind "in His image after His likeness".   Creation only knew "agape" - there was no love of self.  Therefore sin is a mystery.  Hence "the mystery of iniquity".

[Robert]

 Sin is a mysterious, unexplainable thing. There was no reason for its existence; to seek to explain it is to seek to give a reason for it, and that would be to justify it. Sin appeared in a perfect universe, a thing that was shown to be inexcusable and exceeding sinful. The reason of its inception or development was never explained and never can be, even at the last great day when the judgment shall sit and the books be opened, when every man shall be judged according to the deeds done in the body, when the sins of God’s repentant, sanctified people shall be heaped upon the scapegoat, the originator of sin. At that day it will be evident to all that there is not, and never was, any cause for sin. [EGW]

[pnattmbtc]

Assuming it is true that God knew Lucifer would sin if God created him, why wouldn't God simply not create him?

Ellen White doesn't answer that, now does she?

Why would you respond this way? I'm not asking her, I'm asking you.  I'm trying to get you think about it. 

[pnattmbtc]

Me:  Since God knows no beginning, then God & Christ had Lucifer's beginning in mind.  What does EGW state they knew in their foreknowledge?

"From the beginning (i.e., of the creation of Lucifer), God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. "

So they knew, beforehand, that Lucifer would rebel and becomes Satan the apostate (adversary).  They also foresaw the fall of mankind.  Yet they created Lucifer anyway.  

I don't follow your first sentence, "Since God knows no beginning, then God & Christ had Lucifer's beginning in mind."  I don't know what this means.

Regarding the rest, as with Scripture, in trying to understand a certain text we need to bring to bear all the relevant texts of the subject, which is why I quoted the texts which speak of risk.  There are quite a few possibilities in regards to foreknowledge, simple foreknowledge being just one of them, which appears to be the view you are espousing.  A problem with the simple foreknowledge perspective is that it does not allow for risk, and there are at least three references in the Spirit of Prophecy where the fact that God undertook risk in brought out.

[pnattmbtc]

So let's break this down:

1] From the beginning, i.e., from the creation of Lucifer, both God & Christ knew that Lucifer would apostatize and become Satan, the adversary.

2] Neither God nor Christ established sin.  Lucifer turned Satan brought sin, i.e., the love of self, into existence.

3] Both God and Christ made provision to meet the problem, i.e.,  the gospel.

What Ellen White does not explain is why God and Christ created Lucifer anyway knowing that Their decision would cause enormous disaster and ruin of both men and beast.

Your only considering one text, and only interpretation of the text, and an interpretation of the text which is not in harmony with other texts Ellen White wrote.  If the interpretation you are suggesting were correct, there is an obvious contradiction in a text where she says that God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin (GC 492)

 

[pnattmbtc]

God created sentient beings with free will, knowing that, given time without end, at some point one or more of them would choose to do things their own way.  (Earthly parents do the same - on a very limited scale.)

IF - God had created beings WITHOUT free will, then there would be NO LOVE.  God would remain UNLOVED. 

So there's the choice.  No love, OR an inevitable painful rebellion costing the lives of many created beings, and costing God infinite pain (Don't forget that!). 

A woman who chooses to conceive a child KNOWS that she will have to endure pain.  God knew that He would too. 

God chose to create angels and men. 

IF Satan had never rebelled, then all of the Universe would have remained peaceful - yes.  But created beings would NEVER HAVE KNOWN the depths of God's love for them.  There would have been NO CROSS. 

BECAUSE of the rebellion - we have the CROSS.  And all of saved creation will praise the Father and His Son, in a way NOT POSSIBLE without knowing of the cross. 

So don't say that the rebellion was all BAD.  It wasn't.  It resulted in a closer, fuller relationship with God our Father - for eternity.  If we judge HIM by the fruits of creating free will beings, then the fruits will far outweigh the pain - for those who choose to LOVE Him in return.

Hi 8thday.  Glad to see your participation.

These are admitedly deep waters.  There are a lot of different approaches one can take to this question.  One is a philosophical one in regards to the question of is sin a necessary or good thing.  It could be viewed as necessary or good if something good came of it that couldn't have happened otherwise.  There are philosophical problems with the idea that all the unspeakable horror (e.g. hollocaust, child abuse, etc.) we have experienced is necessary in order to show that God is good.

The argument can be made that God made a choice between love, with the inherent risk involve in creating sentient beings with free will, and no love, and there the question is if the risk was worth it.  This is a different argument to consider than the argument we need to consider if we take the position that sin was inevitable.

Another problem with this idea, that sin is inevitable, is that it argues that it was impossible for God to create free moral beings without evil coming to pass.  That suggests there's something wrong with the creation.  If the *possibility* of evil exists, *that* doesn't suggest a defect in the creation (it suggests risk), but if evil is not possible but inevitable, *that* suggests an inherent defect.

[pnattmbtc]

 Sin is a mysterious, unexplainable thing. There was no reason for its existence; to seek to explain it is to seek to give a reason for it, and that would be to justify it.... 

Robert, it is precisely because of this statement that I originally reacted against your statements.  If God set into action a course of event of which the inevitable result was sin, then an reason for the existence of sin *could* be given (which, in fact, you gave).  I am disagreeing with the reason you gave ("God knew it would happen, but chose to create Lucifer anyway").

[8thdaypriest]

Did God "know" it would happen, or that it could happen?  We will never know - until the Kingdom, when we can ask that question. 

I have read about, and personally experienced MANY things that looked like "curses", but later turned out for good.  God does that.  He turns things around, so that they work out for good.  The dispersion of Jews throughout the world then known, was certainly experienced as a "curse", by those who were driven out, or taken out of their homeland.  But that same dispersion, prepared the way for the spread of the gospel.  I'm reading a history of the early "church" which highlights historical records and archeological findings, showing that the early "church" spread through Jewish communities, well into the third century. 

What WAS a curse, God used for blessing.  Does that mean the pain and agony of defeat and dispersion was "good"?  No!  And "sin" is not and never was "good".  I'm saying that God will use it to bring about an ultimate good, which will be better than it could have been, if the "sin" had not happened.  

Sin is rebellion against God.  Was it inevitable?  I don't think so.  But I do not absolutely know.  What I question more, or think more likely, was the "sin" of Adam/Eve - eating the fruit.  

It has always bothered me, knowing how curious humans are, that God allowed Satan to sit in that tree, and then told Adam/Eve to stay away from that tree.  We all know that you don't point to something, and then tell a two-year-old not to touch it.  'Cause THAT is exactly what the two-yr-old WILL DO.  I'm sure, that God had no other way, but I wonder - concerning the sin of Adam/Eve, whether that one was "inevitable". 

Once Satan rebelled against the will of God, the entire universe of sentient beings became infected with deep questions concerning God - His government, justice, omniscience, etc. etc. etc.  That "earth" should remain uninfected, in the midst of this otherwise universal crisis, seems unlikely.  But what happened, was that EARTH became the focal point of the conflict.  We are, all of us, caught in a war zone.  We are forced to CHOOSE a side.  Not to CHOOSE - is a choice.  Now - is this circumstance a "curse" or a "blessing"?  I believe it's one of those curses, that God will turn into the greatest blessing.  All of those who CHOOSE the Lord's side, will be rewarded beyond their imagining. 

Blessings,  Rachel

[pnattmbtc]

Did God "know" it would happen, or that it could happen?  We will never know - until the Kingdom, when we can ask that question. 

I don't know why you would say this.  I think there is tons of evidence to answer this question.

Regarding that God brings blessings out of curses, there's no doubt about that.  But does God design that the curses should happen? (as opposed to allowing them to happen).  This is one of Calvinist/Armenian debates, or a flavor of it.

I believe that part of our job as ambassadors for God is to argue for His innocence, and I believe that the area we are discussing now is an area where God is innocent, and has provided evidence for His innocence.  Specifically, God has provided evidence that He is in no way responsible for sin, neither its inception, or anywhere along the line.

Regarding the Adam and Eve question, it's certainly the case that given how we are now, if you say, "Wet Paint", we will want to touch it, but I'm not sure that that's how Adam and Eve were created.  In any case, the real problem for Eve was in believing the words of serpent, that God did not have her best interests at heart.  I'll agree, however, that there are aspects to the story I find puzzling.

 

 That "earth" should remain uninfected, in the midst of this otherwise universal crisis, seems unlikely.

I disagree with this.  I think it was unlikely, just as sin originating at all was unlikely. 

[8thdaypriest]

Do "free will" and "touching the wet paint" go hand in hand? 

I like your point about Adam/Eve perhaps not created with insatiable curiosity.  Maybe just gullibility?? 

I do believe that God allows negative consequences.  There are a few exceptions - notably Nadab and Abihu, and the 250 princes consumed by the "fire of God" - unless of course, you think Satan was the one who killed them, and God simply "allowed" this.  I personally believe this WAS Jesus Himself.  They crossed a line.  

You and Robert have been discussing the essence of a salvation.  If it IS a relationship - then what is the essence of that relationship.  Graham Maxwell would say, "trust".  I think you would say the same.  Belief that God exists, and that HE can give you eternal life, is NOT enough.  

So WHAT IS IT that one "believes" to the saving of his soul? 

 

[pnattmbtc]

Do "free will" and "touching the wet paint" go hand in hand? 

I like your point about Adam/Eve perhaps not created with insatiable curiosity.  Maybe just gullibility?? 

I do believe that God allows negative consequences.  There are a few exceptions - notably Nadab and Abihu, and the 250 princes consumed by the "fire of God" - unless of course, you think Satan was the one who killed them, and God simply "allowed" this.  I personally believe this WAS Jesus Himself.  They crossed a line.  

You and Robert have been discussing the essence of a salvation.  If it IS a relationship - then what is the essence of that relationship.  Graham Maxwell would say, "trust".  I think you would say the same.  Belief that God exists, and that HE can give you eternal life, is NOT enough.  

So WHAT IS IT that one "believes" to the saving of his soul? 

 

Boy, you're hitting a lot of themes with one short post!

I made have misunderstood your point about human beings wanting to do the very thing you tell them not to do.  I was thinking in terms of being recalcitrant.  I don't think human beings were created with that trait.  However, I do think human beings were created to be curious.  That actually seems to be built into the way the brain works.  One example of this is that apparently the human brain has great difficulty not getting to the end of a "why?" question once it has been posed.  The brain wants to keep churning and churning until there's an answer; it's the way the brain works!  I find that interesting and kind of cool.

Regarding gullible, if we don't view that as a negative thing (because there was no flaw in how God created us), that makes sense to me, although perhaps we could choose some other word.  The idea I have is that they could not have known much, since they had no expderience.  So beings without any experience, it would seem, would have to be gullible.

Regarding "trust", while I very, very much appreciate AGM's framework in terms of the Great Controversy, the importance of evidence, of investigation, and many other things, in terms of this question, I agree with Robert Wieland, who emphasized that while trust is a part of faith, faith includes more than trust.  Wieland defined faith as a heart appreciate of the agape of God, especially as revealed on the cross.  I like this definition very much, and if interested in Biblical support for it, the story in Luke 7 I think it is, about Simon's feast, where Mary annoints Jesus with priceless oil, washes his feet with her tears, and dries them with her hair (what an incredible story!), is a good one, where, at the end, Jesus says, "Go in peace, your faith has saved you."  Here we have a nice object lesson of what faith is about.

As to what is it that one believes, I think of it not so much as a "what" belief, but as a "in whom" belief.  We're not saved by believing certain facts, but by believing in Jesus Christ, which does include knowing certain things about Him, of course, but involves a tranformation, a conversion, a different way of thinking, as well as, of course, commitment.  If I had to answer this question as a "what" answer, I would go AGM, and say that saving belief would involve believing the truth about God, that God is the type of Being that Jesus Christ revealed Him to be.

[Robert]

I am disagreeing with the reason you gave ("God knew it would happen, but chose to create Lucifer anyway").

So you think that God was taken by surprise?

[Robert]

....God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.

 

God didn't invent sin (that would be impossible), but He did allow it.  Therefore He is responsible for all the mayhem that has resulted.  That simply means that if He hadn't created Lucifer, 1/3 of angels wouldn't have rebelled against God's agape and this world would still be paradise. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Again, Jack Sequeira:

"The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions."

Is there an answer?  Jack says not until the judgment:

"God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment."

Edited August 10, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

I am disagreeing with the reason you gave ("God knew it would happen, but chose to create Lucifer anyway").

So you think that God was taken by surprise?

God knew it was possible, but it wasn't expected, similar to this:

What more was there to do for my vineyard
    that I have not done in it?
When I expected it to yield grapes,
    why did it yield wild grapes? (Isa. 5:4)

 

 

[pnattmbtc]

....God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.

 

Robert: God didn't invent sin (that would be impossible), but He did allow it.  Therefore He is responsible for all the mayhem that has resulted.  That simply means that if He hadn't created Lucifer, 1/3 of angels wouldn't have rebelled against God's agape and this world would still be paradise.

 I don't think these mean the same thing.  That is, what you wrote after "that simply means" does not mean the same thing as, "Therefore He is responsible for all the mayhem that has resulted."

I also disagree with this sentence on its own, " Therefore He is responsible for all the mayhem that has resulted."  This doesn't agree with human experience.  If something bad happens that we allow, that does not necessarily make us responsible.  For example, if you have a child, and something bad happens, and you could have prevented it by, say, chaining the child to its bed, that doesn't make you responsible for the bad thing that you allowed to happen.  You only become responsible if there was some fault in what you did, if you allowed something to happen when you had a better alternative.

At no point was there any better alternative for God.  God at no point did anything wrong.  God was in no way responsible for sin in any way that implies that God had a better alternative.

[pnattmbtc]

Again, Jack Sequeira:

"The thing is this: who is responsible for sin? One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions."

Is there an answer?  Jack says not until the judgment:

"God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment."

There are different things going on here.  One is asking who is responsible for the evil things that happen.  The answer is Satan, but we do not have all the evidence of this yet, so the judgment will make this clear.  The other thing is regarding foreknowledge.  Sequeira is assuming what looks to be the simple foreknowledge position, where he asks and answers his own question, "Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes."

He provides no evidence for this position, which is what we have been discussing the last few days.  There are other positions besides the simple foreknowledge position, and even within that position there are variations (e.g. is God timeless?)

There are ideas which come to us from Greek philosophy which we just assume it true, but do not actually have Biblical support.  For example, there is the doctrine of an immortal soul.  The idea of foreknowledge that we hold is another one.  There are scores of texts in Scripture which argue against this idea, of which I've quoted just one (from Isaiah 5).  The usual answer to these texts are that they are just anthropomorphisms, but that's circular reasoning.

There are a number of problems with the simple foreknowledge idea, of which I'll mention two.

One is that it would make God responsible for sin.  If God was certain sin would happen if He created Lucifer, and He did it anyway, then God would be responsible for sin.  You've made this very argument, and it's a sound argument, provided the premise is true.  One of the ways to refute an argument is by contradiction;Reductio ad absurdum. This is what's happening here.  Your valid argument leads to an absurd conclusion, that God is responsible for sin; therefore the premise must be false. (God was certain Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway).

A second problem is that it would do away with risk.  That is, there would be no such thing as risk from the divine perspective, which would contradict the Spirit of Prophecy statement that God undertook risk in sending Christ.  Also that God assumed risk in creation can be reasoned from Scripture.  There are several good books which demonstrate this.

Edited August 10, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Robert]

2 Thess 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 

6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 

7 For the mystery of lawlessness (i.e., the mystery of iniquity) is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 

10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 

11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 

12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

Edited August 11, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

2 Thess 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 

6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 

7 For the mystery of lawlessness (i.e., the mystery of iniquity) is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 

10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 

11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 

12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

I don't know what your point was, since you didn't write anything, but here's a comment from the Spirit of Prophecy:

Looking down to the last days, the same Infinite Power declares, concerning those who “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved”: “For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. As they reject the teachings of His word, God withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love. {CIHS 109.1}

[Robert]

 

I don't know what your point was, since you didn't write anything, but here's a comment from the Spirit of Prophecy:

"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders"

vs

"...God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie"

Satan deceives, but God acts as if He is the One who does the deceiving....Why?

Edited August 12, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

“For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. As they reject the teachings of His word, God withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love. {CIHS 109.1}

Yes, that's nice, but it isn't what Paul states.  EGW isn't the measuring stick of truth.  You don't go to her to see what your Bible states.  You go to the Bible and then see if she agrees with it not the other way around.