The man of Romans 7

[pnattmbtc]

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

What happened here isn't God's assuming blame for the entrance of sin, but God being attributed as doing something which He didn't do, which is rather the opposite of what your are asserting.  That is, God is being put as doing something for which He was not responsible.  With other evidence, we are able to put together what actually happened.  In a similar way, it is often assumed, or wrongly concluded, that God is responsible for the entrance of sin, but by examing all the evidence, we can put together what actually happened. 

[pnattmbtc]

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

Accept this at face value, that God assumes the blame for something He did not actually do, this is in harmony with what I've been claiming!  I've been asserting that God is NOT responsible for the entrance of sin.  Even if God were to graciously assume responsibility for something which is not His fault, it still remains that the thing He is assuming responsibility for is not His fault.

[Robert]

 

What's your train of thought here? .... This has nothing to do with Job. 

God allowed Satan to touch Job and in so doing it was if God struck Job Himself.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Accept this at face value, that God assumes the blame for something He did not actually do....

If God hadn't created Lucifer would there be these problems?  No, not from Lucifer....So God is responsible, but not the author of sin. He is responsible for allowing sin to develop.  Why?  He is sovereign.  Nothing happens without His permission.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Why are you bringing Job into an argument regarding the assertion you made that God knew Lucifer would sin but created him anyway?

Because just as God is responsible for allowing sin by creating Lucifer, He was ultimately responsible what Satan did to Job.  In both God is sovereign meaning nothing happens without His permission.  

[Robert]

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"

Ignoring this speaks volumes....

[pnattmbtc]

First of all, regarding the EGW, I didn't ignore it, but already commented on it earlier in the thread.  I'll repeat what I stated earlier.  

EGW on several occasions speaks of God's entailing "risk" in the Plan of Salvation.  She says things like, "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and ternal life."  Risk can only exist where there is uncertainty.  Uncertain means "not certain", so in the context of the entirety of EGW's writing, God's foreknowledge of sin must mean the *possibility* of sin, not the certainty of it.  This is born out by her comments that God made provision to meet sin, and refers to it as an emergency.

Plus EGW stated in the GC quote that God was "in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin", but clearly if God set into motion a circumstance which must inevitably bring about sin, He would be, so that would also be a contradiction.

Finally, you are not addressing the issue I am raising, although I keep repeating it. It seems to me I'm being very clear in what I'm saying, but you are not addressing the issue, so either you are not understanding it, or are deliberately not addressing it.

I feel a bit exasperated here because I keep repeating the same thing, and you keep not addressing what I'm saying, and I don't know how else to say it.  If I think of some other way, I'll try that, but for now, I'll repeat what I've been saying, and that is that the issue is not God's allowing sin to happen, but is God's causing sin to happen.  If God did something, X, which could only lead to Y, then God is not allowing Y to happen, but causing Y to happen.

[Robert]

 

EGW on several occasions speaks of God's entailing "risk" in the Plan of Salvation.  She says things like, "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and ternal life."  Risk can only exist where there is uncertainty.  Uncertain means "not certain", so in the context of the entirety of EGW's writing, God's foreknowledge of sin must mean the *possibility* of sin, not the certainty of it.  This is born out by her comments that God made provision to meet sin, and refers to it as an emergency.

No, you are twisting.  Here is what she stated:

"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 27, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Risk can only exist where there is uncertainty. .

So God gambled?  He said, "man, I don't know if sin will happen or not (even though no one knows anything about sin, but Me), but I'm going to gamble and see what happens."  

[pnattmbtc]

EGW on several occasions speaks of God's entailing "risk" in the Plan of Salvation.  She says things like, "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and ternal life."  Risk can only exist where there is uncertainty.  Uncertain means "not certain", so in the context of the entirety of EGW's writing, God's foreknowledge of sin must mean the *possibility* of sin, not the certainty of it.  This is born out by her comments that God made provision to meet sin, and refers to it as an emergency.

No, you are twisting.  Here is what she stated:

"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."  

I'm well familiar with the quote.  That's not all she wrote.  When studying a subject, it is common practice to consider all that the person being studied wrote, not just cherry pick one given thing.  What your suggesting doesn't fit with other of her writings.  I've mentioned one thing, risk.  There's also a section of Early Writings which doesn't make sense given the idea you are suggesting, the one about the counsel Jesus had with the Father where the angel asked EGW if she thought the decision for God the Father to send Jesus was not difficult, pointing out that it was.  I'll write this up a bit later, but a quick point is the decision could hardly have been difficult, given your point of view.

[pnattmbtc]

Risk can only exist where there is uncertainty. .

Robert: So God gambled?  He said, "man, I don't know if sin will happen or not (even though no one knows anything about sin, but Me), but I'm going to gamble and see what happens." 

God knew there was a risk involved, and was willing to undertake it.  Risk is inherent in free will.  If you love someone, they may not love you back. 

[pnattmbtc]

Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. 

Said my accompanying angel, “He is in close converse with His Father.” The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. 

He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right. {EW 126.1}

Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others. {EW 126.2}

Said the angel, “Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no.” It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. {EW 127.1}

Everything about this account speaks to the spontaneity of what was going on.  How God would proceed had clearly not been settled.  A plan had been made to meet the provision, but there was still the decision as to whether or not to carry out the plan, and this decision is described as a "struggle."

Consider the three times Jesus went in to His Father.  Consider the idea you have expressed in regards to the future, wherein God would have known from all eternity that Jesus would have approached Him three time, and the third time God would accede to Jesus' request.  Given your presuppositions, this whole account doesn't make sense.

God would have been, "Ok, Jesus will come to see me to discuss this.  This is the first time, so I won't agree yet.  I need to wait two more times."  Then on the second time, "Nope, still one more time to go."

None of what is related here could be the case given your view of the future's being settled.  It is impossible under such circumstances for God to "struggle" to make a decision.  You cannot "struggle" to make a decision which has been settled from all eternity.  "Struggle" can only happen where there is more than one option available, and it is here that your whole paradigm falls apart; you only allow for one option.  And that's the whole problem in a nutshell.  Even for God there are options.  The future is not settled.

Even in the very paragraph you presented, the word "emergency" was used, which suggests that sin occurring was not a certainty.

[Robert]

 

I'm well familiar with the quote.  That's not all she wrote.  ....

Maybe, but this is absolutely straight forward.  It very difficult to dilute this statement, but I'll give you credit you are trying....

[Robert]

 

God knew there was a risk involved, and was willing to undertake it.  Risk is inherent in free will.  If you love someone, they may not love you back. 

So God's a gambling Deity?

[Robert]

 The future is not settled.....Even in the very paragraph you presented, the word "emergency" was used, which suggests that sin occurring was not a certainty.

The Papacy is glad to hear you speak this way.  That means Daniel and Revelation cannot point to Rome.  After all, the future is not settled..

[pnattmbtc]

I'm well familiar with the quote.  That's not all she wrote.  ....

Robert: Maybe, but this is absolutely straight forward.  It very difficult to dilute this statement, but I'll give you credit you are trying....

Why would it be an "emergency" if it was a certainty?   Since when has grabbing a single quote on a subject from any source been an acceptable method?  What about the many other quotes I presented?

[pnattmbtc]

God knew there was a risk involved, and was willing to undertake it.  Risk is inherent in free will.  If you love someone, they may not love you back. 

Robert: So God's a gambling Deity?

Have you ever loved anyone?  If so, you're taking the same gamble God has taken.  Risk is inherent in love.

Edited August 28, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[pnattmbtc]

 The future is not settled.....Even in the very paragraph you presented, the word "emergency" was used, which suggests that sin occurring was not a certainty.

Robert: The Papacy is glad to hear you speak this way.  That means Daniel and Revelation cannot point to Rome.  After all, the future is not settled..

The fact that the future isn't settled doesn't imply it can't be foreseen.  Especially given an omniscient mind.

Here's an anlogy.  Imagine a chess game is being played, and your losting against a grandmaster, who can foresee every possible move you play and the lines which follow.  In ever line the end is checkmate.  He can foretell the future, without the future having to be settled.

If you hold the view that the future is settled, there are many problems.  The problem of why God would created a being He knew would sin, making Him responsible for setting into motion a course of action that would make sin inevitable (which point you have yet to address), is only one of the problems.  Another problem is that if the future is settled, then you don't have free will.  This is what the Reformists taught.  It's logically consistent, but Arminians have been against the idea for centuries.

 

[Robert]

Why would it be an "emergency" if it was a certainty?   Since when has grabbing a single quote on a subject from any source been an acceptable method?  What about the many other quotes I presented?

Why, why, why?  Is that all you can do is ask questions?

Look, the statement is explicit.  Either take it as it read or morph the quote into something it doesn't say.  Your choice. 

[Robert]

 

Have you ever loved anyone?  If so, you're taking the same gamble God has taken.  Risk is inherent in love.

Our love is selfish so you can't compare our love to God's love.

And by the way, God doesn't gamble.  He is a God of order. Nothing catches Him by surprise.

[Robert]

 

The problem of why God would created a being He knew would sin, making Him responsible for setting into motion a course of action that would make sin inevitable (which point you have yet to address), is only one of the problems.

 

Its only a problem for you, pnattmbtc.  Do you trust that God did this for a legitimate reason?  If not, trust His adversary.  

We could speculate why He created Lucifer knowing that he would invent the principle of sin until the cows came home. 

  Another problem is that if the future is settled, then you don't have free will. 

Whatever....You are thinking in a limited fashion.  God's thoughts are beyond the realm of your intellect. If you aren't careful you are going to think yourself out of heaven....

God called matter into existence....At the resurrection God will call the believer, who is resting, into existence in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, but yet He can't know the future?  Please....

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Is 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Why would it be an "emergency" if it was a certainty?   Since when has grabbing a single quote on a subject from any source been an acceptable method?  What about the many other quotes I presented?

Robert: Why, why, why?  Is that all you can do is ask questions?

Look, the statement is explicit.  Either take it as it read or morph the quote into something it doesn't say.  Your choice. 
 
 

 

You must surely know that this is an inadequate response.  This is like someone taking the verse in Luke which says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise," and as much as you try to explain that this is written in Greek, and there's no punctuation, they won't listen.

Using the methodology you are using, you could "prove" anything.

This is from Sequeira's website:

Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.

Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.

When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.

Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application. This is 
called bridge-building and is important in giving Bible studies.

Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.

The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfillment. Both complement each other.

For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text. 

Obviously some issues don't apply (such as translations, when we have the original), but in general these principles apply to studying the words of any author.

[pnattmbtc]

Me: Have you ever loved anyone?  If so, you're taking the same gamble God has taken.  Risk is inherent in love.

Robert: Our love is selfish so you can't compare our love to God's love.

And by the way, God doesn't gamble.  He is a God of order. Nothing catches Him by surprise.

Regarding love, we are created in God's image, so of course we can make comparisons.  Just as risk is involved in our love, so with God.  God is not always loved in return, and it is painful for Him when this happens just like it is for us.

Regarding God's not taking risk, this is not a Scriptural idea.  Consider Isaiah 5:4 for example:

 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? Isaiah 5:4
   
Consider the chapter of the blessings and curses.  There are two possibilities presented, one involving blessings and the other curses.  There is abundant Scriptural proof that God was hoping for the blessings path.  There is no Scripture proof that the blessing path was impossible.

Edited August 28, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Robert]

 

You must surely know that this is an inadequate response.  This is like someone taking the verse in Luke which says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise," and as much as you try to explain that this is written in Greek, and there's no punctuation, they won't listen.

No, it is an adequate response.  There's no Greek...there's no punctuation  issues....Take it as it reads.