The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

I said:"God is responsible....He is sovereign"

 This is the charge of the enemy.  The judgement will show that God is innocent of these charges.... 

Charges?  What charges?  God is sovereign, that means nothing happens without His permission.  He knew Lucifer would sin, but He created him anyway.  Why?  We don't know... The judgment will show that Lucifer is the author of sin & death.  Still, God allowed it...He allowed sin in order to expose its true nature.  That's because on paper the love of self sounds amazing.  Only when allowed to develop does its true results appear.  That's my speculation.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

My arguments are based on your premise!  It can only be speculative if your premise is speculative.  I'm showing, by logic, that your premise leads to an absurd conclusion.

More nonsense...

[Robert]

God did *not* want sin to happen....

Why did God allow Job to go through those terrible trials?  Did God like what happened to Job?  No, but nevertheless He allowed it because Job had a problem....  Apparently this was the only way to reach him....

Edited August 22, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

 This is the charge of the enemy.  The judgement will show that God is innocent of these charges; God is in no way responsible for the entrance of sin!  Just like "The Great Controversy" states.

Since you are quoting Ellen White:

The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Rom. 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. 

Edited August 22, 2015 by Robert
reduce the size, but it wouldn't let me

[Robert]

....Still, God allowed it...He allowed sin in order to expose its true nature.  That's because on paper the love of self sounds amazing.  Only when allowed to develop does its true results appear....

Now, without making EGW the final word, let's quote her for quote's sake:

"It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe."  DA 759

Isn't this basically stating the same idea as I said above?

Satan's system of government is based, not on agape, but self-love.  As stated before, self-love sounds wonderful on paper.  The only way to prove self-love wrong is to allow it to develop.

 

Edited August 22, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

... self-love sounds wonderful on paper.  

"Self love forms the foundation of your single, most important relationship - that with yourself. The strength of all your other relationships is exactly equal to the strength of that foundation. To love yourself is not just a self-esteem boosting piece of advice. It is the prerequisite to truly loving others. The Golden Rule tells us to "love your neighbour as you love yourself". You are likely to have heard it many times, expressed in different ways, thinking it is about loving others. Look a little closer though, and you will find that at its very centre is the command to love yourself."  [http://www.mind-your-reality.com/self_love.html]

So self-love, according to many, is the highest form of love.  They say you can't love others if you have no love of self. I say, "really"?  We live in a world dominated by self-love, yet we have billions in poverty.  Doesn't seem that self-love is the ticket..in fact self-love is the problem, but we wouldn't know this if we didn't see it in action.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 You are likely to have heard it many times, expressed in different ways, thinking it is about loving others. Look a little closer though, and you will find that at its very centre is the command to love yourself."  

I'm worried about educated folks that just can't read.  Like the person who wrote the above.  She (I believe) tells us that at the center of the golden rule is the command to love yourself. Really? 

.As I've stated at least one hundred times there's only one command and that is you are to "love your neighbor as you love yourself."

For the author's quote to be correct the golden rule would have to read, "Love your neighbor and love yourself".  However that's not what the spirit of the law states.  The law demands only agape love. Self-love is the essence of sin therefore the law doesn't demand self-love. We are already born "bent-to-self" which means we are born with self-love.  The law demands that we take our natural love of self and instead of projecting it on ourselves we love our neighbor instead.  That's agape.

Lucifer found God's agape too restrictive. He opposed God's agape.  He took God's agape and bent it back to himself.  That's what self-love is, it is a u-turn agape. 

Edited August 22, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Since you are quoting Ellen White:

The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam....From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. 

This is very clear from the pen of Ellen White.  God foresaw the existence of sin.  From the time that the creation of Lucifer was thought of both God and Christ knew that he would commit apostasy and through this cause the fall of mankind.

[pnattmbtc]

This is the charge of the enemy.  The judgement will show that God is innocent of these charges; God is in no way responsible for the entrance of sin!  Just like "The Great Controversy" states.

Robert:The Great Controversy?  What about "what the Bible states"?  That's the standard...the measuring stick of truth.

Make up your mind, Robert.  *You* quoted from "The Great Controversy".  I'm referring to *your* quote. 

[pnattmbtc]

I don't need to ask God, because God has answered these questions, and I'm happy with the answers He has provided.  My disagreement is with you, not Him. 

Robert: You haven't supplied any answers, just tons of speculation. 

This isn't true.  I've written out posts with paragraphs of well-reasoned arguments. You have chosen not to respond to them, but they are there. 

[pnattmbtc]

I said:"God is responsible....He is sovereign"

 This is the charge of the enemy.  The judgement will show that God is innocent of these charges.... 

Robert: Charges?  What charges?  God is sovereign, that means nothing happens without His permission.  He knew Lucifer would sin, but He created him anyway.  Why?  We don't know... The judgment will show that Lucifer is the author of sin & death.  Still, God allowed it...He allowed sin in order to expose its true nature.  That's because on paper the love of self sounds amazing.  Only when allowed to develop does its true results appear.  That's my speculation.

As to "what charges", the charges that God is responsible for sin.  If God knew Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway, that would make God the author of sin and death, right?  Isn't that simple logic?  If you set into motion a course of action which can only have one result, and you know what that result is, then that makes you the author of the result.  That's what the phrase "author of the result" means; that you caused it to happen.

Regarding *allowing* sin to happen, that's a different question.  To that question, we have the parable of the wheat and the tares.

 

[pnattmbtc]

My arguments are based on your premise!  It can only be speculative if your premise is speculative.  I'm showing, by logic, that your premise leads to an absurd conclusion.

Robert: More nonsense...

No, Robert, not nonsense, but logic. 

[pnattmbtc]

God did *not* want sin to happen....

Robert: Why did God allow Job to go through those terrible trials?  Did God like what happened to Job?  No, but nevertheless He allowed it because Job had a problem....  Apparently this was the only way to reach him....

What's your train of thought here?  What I was saying was that God did not want sin to happen, in contrast to your assertion that God knew Lucifer would sin and created him anyway, which would imply that He did.  This has nothing to do with Job. 

[pnattmbtc]

Now, without making EGW the final word, let's quote her for quote's sake:

"It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe."  DA 759

Isn't this basically stating the same idea as I said above?

Satan's system of government is based, not on agape, but self-love.  As stated before, self-love sounds wonderful on paper.  The only way to prove self-love wrong is to allow it to develop.

I made this point a long time ago, but this is a different issue.  Indeed, as the parable of the wheat and tares points out, time must be allowed so the respective characters of God's government and the government of the enemy could be seen.  The cross, especially, makes clear the respective differences.  The cross shows that both agape and Satan's counterfeit, will go to any ends to achieve their respective goals, in the case of God, the ultimate giving up of self, to obtain all for the object of its love, without regard of the cost to self, and in the case of Satan, the ultimate exaltation of self, without regard of the cost to others.

 

However, what the point I've been making is in regards to your assertion not that God allowed sin, but that God "knew Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway."  You've provided no scriptural evidence that this is the case, and I have pointed out that if what you are asserting were true, then you would have God setting into motion a course of action which would inevitably lead to sin, which everything God has revealed of Himself in Christ, testified that God would not do.

[Robert]

 

.... If God knew Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway, that would make God the author of sin and death, right?  Isn't that simple logic?

 

No....Bad logic....

[Robert]

 

This isn't true.  I've written out posts with paragraphs of well-reasoned arguments. 

Trying to toot your own horn?  You've presented flawed arguments!

[Robert]

 

What's your train of thought here?  What I was saying was that God did not want sin to happen, in contrast to your assertion that God knew Lucifer would sin and created him anyway, which would imply that He did.  This has nothing to do with Job. 

 

Job 1:6 One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 

7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." 

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." 

9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 

10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 

11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." 

12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

 

 

 

Notice who is sovereign: "But stretch out your (i.e., the Lord's) hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."  

Edited August 24, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 You've provided no scriptural evidence that this is the case, and I have pointed out that if what you are asserting were true, then you would have God setting into motion a course of action which would inevitably lead to sin, which everything God has revealed of Himself in Christ, testified that God would not do.

The Bible is loaded with God assuming the blame for the entrance of sin.  Take this one for example:

 

God claims He killed Saul: So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance, but he did not inquire of the Lord; therefore, He [God] killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David, the son of Jesse (1 Chron. 10:13, 14).

Saul actually committed suicide: Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it” . . . But his armorbearer would not. . . . Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it. . . . So Saul . . . died (1 Chron. 10:4, 6).

 

Edited August 24, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 

The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam....From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. 

Kind of bypassed this one.  Why?

As I said, "This is very clear from the pen of Ellen White.  God foresaw the existence of sin.  From the time that the creation of Lucifer was thought of both God and Christ knew that he would commit apostasy and through this cause the fall of mankind"

Edited August 24, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

The Bible is loaded with God assuming the blame for the entrance of sin.  Take this one for example:

 

God claims He killed Saul: So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance, but he did not inquire of the Lord; therefore, He [God] killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David, the son of Jesse (1 Chron. 10:13, 14).

Saul actually committed suicide: Saul said to his armorbearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it” . . . But his armorbearer would not. . . . Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it. . . . So Saul . . . died (1 Chron. 10:4, 6).

 

Q: Why does God assume the blame for Saul's death?

A: Because if God had not allowed sin to develop, through the creation of Lucifer turned Satan, Saul wouldn't have died. Death is a product of the fall of mankind.  Therefore God assumes the blame for Saul's death as if He actually murdered Saul Himself.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Q: Why does God assume the blame for Saul's death?

A: Because if God had not allowed sin to develop, through the creation of Lucifer turned Satan, Saul wouldn't have died. Death is a product of the fall of mankind.  Therefore God assumes the blame for Saul's death as if He actually murdered Saul Himself.

 

The same is true with Pharaoh:

God claims that He hardened Pharoah's heart And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharoah which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” (Exodus 4:21).

Pharoah hardened his own heart But when Pharoah saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said . . . But Pharoah hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go (Exodus 8:14, 32).

 

Edited August 25, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Here  are more statements where God assumes the blame for something he did not actually do:

*          But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him (1 Samuel 16:14, KJV; emphasis supplied). 

*          God will send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11). 

*          I [God] create evil (Isaiah 45:7 KJV).

Edited August 25, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

 If God knew Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway, that would make God the author of sin and death, right?  Isn't that simple logic?

 

Robert: No....Bad logic....

It's just reasoning from the meaning of words.  An author is someone who brings about a work.  If someone causes something to happen, then that someone is the "author" of the thing he caused to happen.  You are asserting that God set into motion a course of action which would inevitably lead to sin.  We can put it this way:

1.X causes Y to happen by setting into motion a course of action which would inevitably lead to Z.

2.Synonymously,  X is the author of Z.

[pnattmbtc]

This isn't true.  I've written out posts with paragraphs of well-reasoned arguments. 

Robert: Trying to toot your own horn?  You've presented flawed arguments!

No, Robert.  Not tooting my own horn.  "Well-reasoned argument" is not a description of the quality of the arguments, but the type of arguments.  If you think they are flawed, you should show the reasoning is incorrect by either presenting an argument the a premise I'm using is false, or demonstrating a flaw in one of the steps of the argument. 

[pnattmbtc]

 

Job 1:6 One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 

7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." 

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." 

9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 

10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 

11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." 

12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

 

 

 

Notice who is sovereign: "But stretch out your (i.e., the Lord's) hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."  

The Calvinists use sovereignty to argue that God is the author of all things, including sin.  Your arguments seems to be that God is sovereign because He allowed sin to happen.  However, allowing sin to happen isn't even the question.  So I still don't know what your train of thought is here.  Why are you bringing Job into an argument regarding the assertion you made that God knew Lucifer would sin but created him anyway?

Edited August 25, 2015 by pnattmbtc