The man of Romans 7

[pnattmbtc]

Gen 15:13 Then the LORD said to him (Abraham), "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years.

How did God know that Abraham's descendants would be enslaved by the Egyptians? Isn't the will involved here? 

 The answer here is the same for what I wrote in regards to God's seeing the kingdoms in Daniel.  The will would be involved if the future were definite before the being with free will acted.  If there was only one future involved, that would be a problem.  There are multiple futures which God was seeing, but in all of them Abraham's descendants would be enslaved by the Egyptians.

[pnattmbtc]

Why would God do that?  What you're saying doesn't make sense....

You cut this off at a bad place.  Please be careful with how you quote things, so there are complete thoughts captured.  What I was saying doesn't make sense is important to capture!  What I was saying didn't make sense was your assertion that I was blurring the subject by asking why God would do what you are suggesting He did.  This is a *very* important question!

Robert:Well, you aren't God...you can't think at His level and your tainted with sin.  So stop asking questions that cant' be answered.  Apparently God had a reason.  I can speculate, but that's all it would be.  

This isn't an acceptable answer.  I don't mean to me.  Scripture tells us we should be able to give a reason for the things we believe.  This is an important concept because it has to do with what sort of God we worship.  Do we worship a good who wants us to know Him, why He is the way He is, why He does the things He does.  Or does He just want us to believe things and do things "because I said so."  I can think of no more important matter than the stand we take on this question.

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. John 15:15

Robert: Is 55:8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 This is being taken out of context.  The context is not "How dare you question Me?  Don't you know who I am?!" but God is explaining that He is gracious,and merciful, and it is in this sense that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.  Here's how it starts:

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.

It's a message of fantastic good news!  It's all about the goodness of God; not His telling us to mind our own business and not bother ourselves with how He does things.

More than anything God wants us to know Him.  To know God is life eternal.  God sent His Son to reveal Himself to us.

In truth, God is better than we can imagine, and our ability to understand His good increases as we search out why He is the way He is, and why He does the things He does.  He wants us to reverently question Him.  It's very important that we understand this. 

[Robert]

 There are multiple futures which God was seeing, but in all of them Abraham's descendants would be enslaved by the Egyptians.

Pure, unadulterated speculation!

[Robert]

 

 This is being taken out of context.  The context is not "How dare you question Me?  Don't you know who I am?!" but God is explaining that He is gracious,and merciful, and it is in this sense that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.  

Okay, then you can think at the level of God?  Please!  He is agape and you are not....

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

Why would God do that? ... If God did what you're suggesting, there would have to be a reason.  If you can't answer a question as to why God would do something that you think He did, that should be alarm bells going off....

Really?  That's asinine!  There's many things we do not know....E.G., how can a sinless being produce self-love?  There's no answer because the Bible calls it "the mystery of iniquity".  So using your own logic that should sound off alarm bells because I can't answer the question. 

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

There are multiple futures which God was seeing, but in all of them Abraham's descendants would be enslaved by the Egyptians.

Pure, unadulterated speculation!

No more so than your view!  Your asking me questions of logic, to which I'm responding.  You're not making a Scriptural argument, but one based on your reasoning, how you view things.  My answers are explaining that yours is not the only way of looking at this. 

[pnattmbtc]

This is being taken out of context.  The context is not "How dare you question Me?  Don't you know who I am?!" but God is explaining that He is gracious,and merciful, and it is in this sense that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.  

Robert:Okay, then you can think at the level of God?  Please!  He is agape and you are not...

???  (<- I need an icon for this).  You quoted Isaiah 55 out of context, which I explained.  What does your response have to do with this?  Why would I have to think at the level of God to explain a verse taken out of context? 

[pnattmbtc]

Why would God do that? ... If God did what you're suggesting, there would have to be a reason.  If you can't answer a question as to why God would do something that you think He did, that should be alarm bells going off....

Robert: Really?  That's asinine!  There's many things we do not know....E.G., how can a sinless being produce self-love?  There's no answer because the Bible calls it "the mystery of iniquity".  So using your own logic that should sound off alarm bells because I can't answer the question. 

No, I didn't say any questions should be answerable.  Actually it's not me, it's Scripture.  Scripture tells us we should be able to give a reason for our faith.  Anyway, back to what I said, it was not that any question should be answerable, but questions regarding God's character, questions regarding why He is the way He is, and does what He does, again, and this cannot be overemphasized, in reference to God's character.  These types of questions He wants us to ask and know.

Certainly the question as to why God would create sin, if this is a fair way of characterizing your position - if it's not, I can put it this way; why God would set into motion a course of events which would inevitably lead to sin - certainly this type of question is one we should be able to answer.  This goes to the very heart of who we think God is. 

[Robert]

Why would God do that? 

Why would God created Lucifer knowing that he would invent the principle of self (sin)?  

As I said any answer would be speculative. However, Jack did give a good answer.  Here it is again since you apparently overlooked it:

 

When Lucifer sinned, did he think he was doing a good thing? Or did he think he was doing a bad thing? He said that he was trying to improve the lot of the angels. There’s something here that is very important and we need to understand it. The love of God, which is the basis of His government, has no self in it. “Love seeketh not her own.” When you look at it philosophically, the love of self sounds very convincing. “You cannot be happy unless you love self.” So the idea of self-love sounds right. There is that text is Proverbs that says, “There’s a way that seems right.”

So Lucifer felt that his way of self-love was better than God’s way where there is no self. So God said, “Go ahead, I will allow you to develop sin,”....

My take on this is that God allowed Lucifer to develop his love of self because, on paper, Lucifer's love sounded  marvelous, but when put into action...when the rubber actually met the road...his concept of self-love proved to be disastrous!

I see this type of thing at my work all the time.  Managers come up with brainless ideas claiming it's good for the company.  On paper it looks great, but when put into practice its bad for the business.  But by then these managers have climbed the corporate ladder where you can't question their bad decisions..  They become bullet-proof....

Why do they come up with these ideas?  Is it to help the company succeed or is it really self-interest?  Well, again, when put into practice it's the latter.  The only way to expose the BS is to allow it to be developed and but into practice. 

That's the best answer I can give.....

 

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Look at this video.  I used it as an illustration before.  Learning to love yourself sounds great.  Listen to the song.

" the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all"

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

The law of God is based on agape.  It does not say 

1] love your neighbor 

and

2] love yourself

No, we are to love our neighbor as we naturally, selfishly love our selves.  It's self-love turned 180 degrees out and that's agape.  

So even within Christian circles Lucifer's self-love is lifted up as the great moral code.  That's how deceiving it is and that's why God had to allow it to be developed.  He allowed it in order to expose it for what it is - disastrous! 

Edited August 13, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Not that I would encourage anyone to watch this R-rated movie (you can watch the TV version), but there's a good point in it.  Al Pacino is playing the devil. Notice what he says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv9zXUd55Sw

[Robert]

So even within Christian circles Lucifer's self-love is lifted up as the great moral code.  That's how deceiving it is ...

Also, keep in mind, that Lucifer convinced 1/3 the angels of heaven that his love of self was better than God's selfless, agape love.  So again, self-love is very convincing.  In fact everything in the world is based on the love of self.  Here's Jack:

Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.”  Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious.  According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self).

[pnattmbtc]

Hi Robert.  I appreciate your responses, and these are good points, but they are responding to a different question than the one I asked.  They are responded to the question of how God should deal with sin once it arose.  I think Sequeira's thoughts are good thoughts, and would encourage you to read Robert Wieland's works, if you haven't already done so, as many of these ideas (e.g., the interpretation of "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself") came from Wieland, so you might as well read the ideas first hand.  Also, since Wieland got many of his ideas from Waggoner, it would be good to read Waggoner as well.

Anyway, back to the question I asked.  My question is not from the point of time *after* sin had already entered into the world, but *before*.  I'm asking, not why God would have proceeded as He did *after* sin existed, but why God, *before* sin existed, would have proceeded in such a way that sin was inevitable.  It would have been better to have proceeded in a way in which sin was not inevitable, unless we wish to argue that there is something good about sin.

[Robert]

Anyway, back to the question I asked.  My question is not from the point of time *after* sin had already entered into the world, but *before*.  I'm asking, not why God would have proceeded as He did *after* sin existed, but why God, *before* sin existed, would have proceeded in such a way that sin was inevitable.  It would have been better to have proceeded in a way in which sin was not inevitable, unless we wish to argue that there is something good about sin.

Lucifer questioning God's agape love wasn't sin. I believe I read, if it is true, that the Trinity tried to convince Lucifer that his arguments were wrong and that to continue his present course would lead to rebellion. At some point he moved from questioning God's agape to open rebellion against it.  

Edited August 14, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

In great mercy, according to His divine character, God bore long with Lucifer. The spirit of discontent and disaffection had never before been known in heaven. It was a new element, strange, mysterious, unaccountable. Lucifer himself had not at first been acquainted with the real nature of his feelings; for a time he had feared to express the workings and imaginings of his mind; yet he did not dismiss them. He did not see whither he was drifting. But such efforts as infinite love and wisdom only could devise, were made to convince him of his error. His disaffection was proved to be without cause, and he was made to see what would be the result of persisting in revolt. Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong. He saw that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works" (Psalm 145:17); that the divine statutes are just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at that time fully cast off his allegiance to God. Though he had left his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. The time had come for a final decision; he must fully yield to the divine sovereignty or place himself in open rebellion. He nearly reached the decision to return, but pride forbade him. It was too great a sacrifice for one who had been so highly honored to confess that he had been in error, that his imaginings were false, and to yield to the authority which he had been working to prove unjust. [EGW]

[Robert]

When Satan rebelled against God in heaven [Revelation 12:7-9], he was really rebelling against the God’s agape love the spirit of His law [Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:13-14].  The idea that “love (agape) seeketh not her own” (i.e., self) [1 Corinthians 13:5] was too restrictive to Lucifer.  Consequently he objected to it and introduced the principle of self-love or eros [Ezekiel 28:15; Isaiah 14:12-14].   [Jack S.]

[pnattmbtc]

Robert, you're dealing with the question of what Lucifer did in terms of his rebellion, which is a fine topic, but my question has to do with why God would have created a being He was certain would sin in the first place.  Why would God prefer a universe with sin to one without sin?  I see no answer to this question, which led me away from the simple foreknowledge idea.  Also studying this out, the common idea of foreknowledge people have does not come from Scripture, but from Greek philosophy; the same sort of thing that happened with the state of the dead.

[Robert]

 Why would God prefer a universe with sin to one without sin? 

I don't believe God would ever prefer sin.

 I see no answer to this question, which led me away from the simple foreknowledge idea. 

But we know that God has foreknowledge because He revealed future events to His prophets. 

 Also studying this out, the common idea of foreknowledge people have does not come from Scripture, but from Greek philosophy; the same sort of thing that happened with the state of the dead. 

 

Romans 9:11 ...before they (Esau and Jacob) were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she (Rebekah) received a message from God. ....12 She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.” 13 In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.” NLT

In God’s foreknowledge He knew Esau would despise his birthright while Jacob would cherish it. 

 

Edited August 16, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Thanks Stan for correcting my email/spam situation.

[pnattmbtc]

Me: Why would God prefer a universe with sin to one without sin? 

Rpbert" I don't believe God would ever prefer sin.

I agree with this, which is the difficulty I am seeing with your view.  According to your view, God acted in a way which would contradict what you just asserted, that God wouldn't ever prefer sin.  According to your view, God could have simply not created Lucifer, and had a universe without sin.  Why didn't He just do that?

     
Me: I see no answer to this question, which led me away from the simple foreknowledge idea. 

Robert: But we know that God has foreknowledge because He revealed future events to His prophets. 

There is more than one view of that foreknowledge, however, so the logical conclusion points to a problem with the particular view you are holding.

     
 Me:Also studying this out, the common idea of foreknowledge people have does not come from Scripture, but from Greek philosophy; the same sort of thing that happened with the state of the dead. 

Robert: Romans 9:11 ...before they (Esau and Jacob) were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she (Rebekah) received a message from God. ....12 She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.” 13 In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.” NLT

In God’s foreknowledge He knew Esau would despise his birthright while Jacob would cherish it. 

God does have foreknowledge, so there's no argument against that.  The question is really about the nature of the future.  Is the future a single-threaded thing, which must play out in a certain way, and there's no way around that?  Or are there different possible futures, depending upon the choices which people make, as well as other factors?

[Robert]

God does have foreknowledge, so there's no argument against that.  The question is really about the nature of the future.  Is the future a single-threaded thing, which must play out in a certain way, and there's no way around that?  Or are there different possible futures, depending upon the choices which people make, as well as other factors?

You are speculating.  

God knew Esau would despise his birthright while Jacob would cherish it. 

If He knew this He knew Lucifer would sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Me: God does have foreknowledge, so there's no argument against that.  The question is really about the nature of the future.  Is the future a single-threaded thing, which must play out in a certain way, and there's no way around that?  Or are there different possible futures, depending upon the choices which people make, as well as other factors?

Robert:You are speculating.  

I'm not speculating anything, but pointing out that the question at issue is what the nature of the future is.  How can this be viewed as a speculation?

Robert: God knew Esau would despise his birthright while Jacob would cherish it. 

If He knew this He knew Lucifer would sin.

 First of all, Romans 9 isn't even talking about about Esau and Jacob as individuals, which the very next verse, verse 12, makes clear.  Ssecondly, even if it were, it wouldn't follow that because God knew what one individual one do in one circumstance, it would necessarily follow that God knows what every individual would do in every circumstance.  Thirdly, it's missing the boat in terms of what the issue is, which is not foreknowledge, but the nature of the future.  That is, the question is not whether or not God sees the future clearly (He does), but what is the future that God sees? (i.e., what are the contents of that future).  Does God see the future as a fixed thing, or as a dynamic thing?  Is the future like the past, which is determined, or is it unlike the past?

Your point of view appears to be that the future is just as determined as the past, but we don't perceive it as such because we are not omniscient.  What I am pointing out is that the future may be different from the past, not determined, with the consequence that God, being omniscient, sees that future not as determined (which it isn't), but as undetemined, meaning it does nto consist of a single possibility.

Regarding your assertion that God knew Lucifer would sin but created him anyway, there is still the same problem there has been all along, which is that if this were the case, then God would be responsible for the entrance of sin by setting in motion a course of action which must inevitably lead to sin.  But God was *not* responsible for the entrance of sin, therefore what you are suggesting could not be what happened.  There must be another explanation.

[Robert]

I'm not speculating anything, but pointing out that the question at issue is what the nature of the future is.  How can this be viewed as a speculation?

You are attempting to use your human mind to grasp the things of God, namely His foreknowledge.  That's speculation.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

What I am pointing out is that the future may be different from the past, not determined, with the consequence that God, being omniscient, sees that future not as determined (which it isn't), but as undetemined, meaning it does not consist of a single possibility.

Again, speculation.  You don't know how God knows....You are speculating.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Robert