The man of Romans 7

[Robert]

Why would God enter into the Old Covenant with Israel when He knew that they could not obey the law and thus fulfill the it?  The answer involves no speculation.....I ask this to prove that just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't prove it to be error.

The answer is simply:  They didn't know....The OC was to open their eyes to the fact that "there is none righteous, no, not even one".

Do you realize that under the OC many Jews died?  Does that sound like a loving God?  No!  So according to you my answer must be wrong because it doesn't fit God's character, but the facts are there for the reading:  If one committed adultery, under law, he died.  If one gathered firewood on the sabbath, he died.  I can go on....

Why would a God who is love, kill?

Well, He didn't kill because the Jews, in their ignorant pride, chose to be under law.  Under law you sin you die.  Jesus came to deliver us from under law.  Those who insist on presenting their righteousness before the law will suffer the curse of the law, i.e., the 2nd death.  

Edited September 2, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Do you realize that under the OC many Jews died (under law)?  Does that sound like a loving God?  No!  So according to you my answer must be wrong because it doesn't fit God's character, but the facts are there for the reading: 

(Numbers 15:32-36)--"Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33  And those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."

Does this sound like a God of agape?

No, it doesn't.

Why did God permit the Jews to enter the OC?  Why didn't He just say, "You aren't righteous so don't enter this covenant?"

Because the Jews would have said (as they did), "You give us your law and we will keep it.  In return for keeping it You owe us heaven."  So God agreed and stated the terms of the covenant: "Obey and live, disobey and DIE"

If you chose to be under law the law will condemn you to death.

If you chose to be under God's love then you are perfect before the law in the doing & dying of our Great High Priest, Christ Jesus.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:What you are asserting here is in direct contradiction to the above, which is the problem of what you have been asserting.  It is accusing God of something of which He is innocent.

Robert: No, He is not innocent.

You left out the context.  Here is the context:

Me:We could add:

6)God is in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.

Robert: Sure He is....

You are asserting here that God *is* responsible for the entrance of sin.  This is a point of disagreement.

Robert:He is innnocent of inventing sin, but He is not innocent of permitting it to flourish. 

We're not discussing the second part of the sentence.  Regarding the first, if God set into motion a course of action which could only result in sin, that would make God responsible for sin's coming about.  This is what I'm arguing against in regards to your position.

Robert: He knew Lucifer would sin, but He created him anyway.  Why?  We can only speculate.  The judgment will reveal why He created Lucifer knowing that he would  sin.....

You haven't provided any reason for sentences 1 or 3.  Regarding sentence 2, "we can only speculate", why you would think this?  We have an entire chapter in the Great Controversy on the entrance of sin.  We have Genesis and other portions of Scripture which talk about it.  Clearly God has given us plenty of evidence to consider.  There is no need to speculate when God has presented evidence.

[pnattmbtc]

Me: This made me laugh.  No other possibilities?  That effectively cuts out learning anything. 

Robert: There's nothing to learn because we do not know.  To pretend that you do demonstrates your nature is at work.

You left out the context.  I wrote:

"I'm not expecting you will come to agree with my position (as you apparently don't even know what it is) but I hope you'll open your horizons beyond simply what you currently think and become aware that there are other possibilities."

To which you responded, "No, no other possibilities."

It looks like you negelteced the context.  I was talking about the question of foreknowledge in general, not any specific theory.  When you write, "There's nothing to learn because we do not know," this appears to be in reference to a speicif idea, which isn't what I was referring to.  But even this statement is problematic, becuase it assumes if Robert doesn't know something, it can't be known.  Because you don't know something does not mean "we do not know."  It simply means you do not know.

[pnattmbtc]

Me:There isn't any reason, of course, that God would do this.  Hence your idea doesn't make sense; it's not in harmony with God's character.  ....

Robert:Why would God enter into the Old Covenant with Israel when He knew that they could not obey the law and thus fulfill the it?  The answer involves no speculation.....I ask this to prove that just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't prove it to be error.

This doesn't make sense.  For this argument to work, I would have to think it doesn't make sense that God would enter into the Old Covenant with Israel when He knew the could not obey.  Why would you think this doesn't make sense to me?

Secondly, whether something makes sense to me isn't the issue, but simply whether it make sense, that is, if it is logical.  This is an objective thing, not a subjective thing.

[pnattmbtc]

Why would God enter into the Old Covenant with Israel when He knew that they could not obey the law and thus fulfill the it?  The answer involves no speculation.....I ask this to prove that just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't prove it to be error.

Robert:The answer is simply:  They didn't know....The OC was to open their eyes to the fact that "there is none righteous, no, not even one".

Do you realize that under the OC many Jews died?  Does that sound like a loving God?  No!  So according to you my answer must be wrong because it doesn't fit God's character, but the facts are there for the reading:  If one committed adultery, under law, he died.  If one gathered firewood on the sabbath, he died.  I can go on....

Why would a God who is love, kill?

Well, He didn't kill because the Jews, in their ignorant pride, chose to be under law.  Under law you sin you die.  Jesus came to deliver us from under law.  Those who insist on presenting their righteousness before the law will suffer the curse of the law, i.e., the 2nd death.  

What point are you trying to make here?  That we shouldn't consider God's character in trying to determine truth?  What started your response was my comment:

Me:There isn't any reason, of course, that God would do this.  Hence your idea doesn't make sense; it's not in harmony with God's character. 

You seem to be disagreeing with this because there are incidents in Scripture which appear to put God in a bad light, and are reasoning that because of this, we shouldn't try to determine truth on the basis of God's character.  Is that the argument you are trying to make? 

[Robert]

You haven't provided any reason for sentences 1 or 3.  Regarding sentence 2, "we can only speculate", why you would think this?  We have an entire chapter in the Great Controversy on the entrance of sin.  We have Genesis and other portions of Scripture which talk about it.  Clearly God has given us plenty of evidence to consider.  There is no need to speculate when God has presented evidence.

GC doesn't give an answer.  You know very well that EGW said she and the church, of that time, had limited light.  In fact she called it a glimmer of the light that was yet to come....

[Robert]

  There is no need to speculate when God has presented evidence.

Stop it....Stop!  

There are no answers to why God created Lucifer knowing He would sin. None!  Zero!  

Just like there are no answers how a perfect, free-will being would chose to go independent and thus become bent-to-self....

[Robert]

Because you don't know something does not mean "we do not know."  It simply means you do not know.

"We"?  You mean "you"?  It's your fanciful, mislead ideas....It's your baby.

[Robert]

 

What point are you trying to make here?  That we shouldn't consider God's character in trying to determine truth?  

No, but still you must careful with your conclusions...

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction....

[pnattmbtc]

Me: You haven't provided any reason for sentences 1 or 3.  Regarding sentence 2, "we can only speculate", why you would think this?  We have an entire chapter in the Great Controversy on the entrance of sin.  We have Genesis and other portions of Scripture which talk about it.  Clearly God has given us plenty of evidence to consider.  There is no need to speculate when God has presented evidence.

Robert: GC doesn't give an answer.  You know very well that EGW said she and the church, of that time, had limited light.  In fact she called it a glimmer of the light that was yet to come....

GC does give an answer.  We have a whole chapter on the subject.  I pointed this out.

Me: There is no need to speculate when God has presented evidence.

Robert: Stop it....Stop!

There are no answers to why God created Lucifer knowing He would sin. None!  Zero!  

Of course not, because this would be contradictory.  However, as to what actually did happen, we have evidence.

Robert: Just like there are no answers how a perfect, free-will being would chose to go independent and thus become bent-to-self.

Now *this* is correct.  There is indeed no answer to this question.  This is "the mystery of initiquity".  However, your idea that "God knew Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway" is a non-starter.  Nothing in inspiration suggests this.

Me: Because you don't know something does not mean "we do not know."  It simply means you do not know.

Robert: "We"?  You mean "you"?

I was quoting you.  You wrote "we don't know."  But you should have written "I don't know."  Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it's unknowable; it just means *you* don't know.

Me: What point are you trying to make here?  That we shouldn't consider God's character in trying to determine truth?  

Robert: No, but still you must careful with your conclusions...

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction....

This didn't help.  What was the point of the Old Covenant comment?

Back to the points I have been making.  There are mainly two.

1.Your idea that "God knew Satan would sin, but created him anyway" is tantamount to saying that God set into motion a course of action which would inevitably lead to sin.  However, what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture, especially the cross, deonstrates that God would not do such a thing.

Given that God knew that Lucifer would sin, and given that God knew that other free-will beings would not sin, then the only way that God could have chosen to create free-will beings that were certain to sin would be if there were some benefit to sin; if somehow a universe with sin is better than a universe without sin, all other things being equal.

The point that I have been making is that God was not at fault for the entrance of sin; God did *not* set into motion a course of action which would make sin inevitable, only possible.  There's a big difference.

2.You have the idea (I'm inferring this from your comments) that the future is single-threaded, or settled, or fixed, or determined (all synonyms here).  A settled future is incompatible with the concept of free will as we believe it (i.e., as Arminians; Calvinists have a different concept of free-will).

I'd be happy to discuss this with you.

[Robert]

GC does give an answer. 

No.....It gives you an answer.....There is no answer.

[Robert]

1.Your idea that "God knew Satan would sin, but created him anyway" is tantamount to saying that God set into motion a course of action which would inevitably lead to sin.  However, what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture, especially the cross, demonstrates that God would not do such a thing..

Okay, I'll run with your idea:

Apparently God knew that if He created free-will beings that self-dependence, and therefore iniquity, would be inevitable.  He could have just decided to create robots, but He didn't.  The judgement will reveal all these important questions.  Patience. 

However there's good news too:  In His omniscience He also knew that after iniquity was fully & completely exposed that self-sufficiency, and therefore sin, would not arise a second time. 

To insure that all His creation remain eternally secure, God allowed sin to be inevitable (as you state) for a greater purpose.  Otherwise we are back to robots.....

I can speculate too.... 

Edited September 2, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

GC does give an answer. 

Robert: No.....It gives you an answer.....There is no answer.

It gives everyone an answer.  The chapter is called "The Origin of Evil".  It explains that God was not responsible for the entrance of sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Okay, I'll run with your idea:

Apparently God knew that if He created free-will beings that self-dependence, and therefore iniquity, would be inevitable.

 

No, this can't be.  First of all, you already stated previously that there were free will individuals God created which would not sin. So this would be contradicting what you yourself said.  Secondly, if it were true that God could not create free will beings which would not sin, then there would be a flaw in the design, and this is contradicted by the chapter "The Origin of Evil" (as well as common sense; why would a perfectly created being, made to love God and be loved by God, be destined to sin?)

He could have just decided to create robots, but He didn't.  

This explains the risk of creating free-will beings, but does not address your assertion, which would make sin inevitable.  And this is the whole problem with it; it makes sin inevitable.  Sin cannot be inevitable, or the responsibility falls back to God.  It is only "the mystery of iniquity" if it is NOT inevitable.

The judgement will reveal all these important questions.  Patience. 

The judgment will reveal what God has revealed to us, that there was no flaw in God's design, and God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.

However there's good news too:  In His omniscience He also knew that after iniquity was fully & completely exposed that self-sufficiency, and therefore sin, would not arise a second time. 

To insure that all His creation remain eternally secure, God allowed sin to be inevitable (as you state) for a greater purpose.  

Surely you should be able to see the flaw in this reasoning.  God made sin inevitable to make sure it wouldn't arise a *second* time?  According to your idea of things, God could have just created free-will beings so that it never came up in the first place!

Otherwise we are back to robots.....I can speculate too

What you're doing isn't exactly speculating.  Speculating is presenting ideas without any evidence, which you are sort of doing, but more to the point, you are presenting an argument which doesn't make sense.  Really, make sin inevitable so that it wouldn't happen again?  You can't seriously believe this. 

[Robert]

 

It gives everyone an answer.  The chapter is called "The Origin of Evil".  It explains that God was not responsible for the entrance of sin.

No it doesn't....I just read it....

[Robert]

The judgment will reveal what God has revealed to us, that there was no flaw in God's design, and God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.

Free-will gives license to beings, created in God's image, to chose to become self-sufficient.  God foresaw that Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway.  You aren't going to change my mind on this one so stop trying.  It is very annoying. 

Edited September 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

  Really, make sin inevitable so that it wouldn't happen again?  You can't seriously believe this. 

Again, your words....I played your game and you didn't like my answers.  I could care less. 

Sin was inevitable because God chose to create beings with free-wills.  It was inevitable (again, your words) because beings before sin did't have the capacity to see the results of self-seeking and self-love. 

It will never happen again (i.e., according to God's omniscience) because sin, the love of self, will forever be exposed.  Beings will no longer be ignorant concerning the nature of sin.  

Edited September 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

"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. The working out of Satan's rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. 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..." GC 499

God is sovereign. That mean nothing happens without His permission.  He allowed sin as "a lesson to the universe".  This "experiment" was permitted as a "perpetual safeguard" for future being "to prevent them from being deceived" by the nature of sin, which is the love of self.   

 

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

It gives everyone an answer.  The chapter is called "The Origin of Evil".  It explains that God was not responsible for the entrance of sin.

Robert: No it doesn't....I just read it....

Right here:

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. 

 This explains that God was not responsible for the entrance of sin.

[pnattmbtc]

Me: The judgment will reveal what God has revealed to us, that there was no flaw in God's design, and God was in no way responsible for the entrance of sin.

Robert: Free-will gives license to beings, created in God's image, to chose to become self-sufficient.  God foresaw that Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway.  You aren't going to change my mind on this one so stop trying.  It is very annoying. 

This is a discussion board.  The purpose is to discuss things.  You have a point of view, and I have one.  Through discussing our points of view, we can learn things, and, even if we don't change our minds (people rarely do on the forums) we can strengthen the reasoning of our own positions.  Why do you participate in discussions?

Me: Really, make sin inevitable so that it wouldn't happen again?  You can't seriously believe this. 

Robert: Again, your words....I played your game and you didn't like my answers.  I could care less. 

I'm stating what you said.  Your position isn't logically sound.

Robert: Sin was inevitable because God chose to create beings with free-wills.  

If this were true, then there would be a flaw in the design, which is contradicted by the GC quote, and common sense (since God is perfect).

Robert: It was inevitable (again, your words) because beings before sin did't have the capacity to see the results of self-seeking and self-love. 

If it is inevitable that free-will beings will choose to sin because they don't have the capacity to see the results of self-seeking and self-love, then there is a flaw in the design.  Also, why would a free-will being need to see the results of self-seeking and self-love in the first place?  Why should the existence of self-seeking and self-love be inevitable?

It will never happen again (i.e., according to God's omniscience) because sin, the love of self, will forever be exposed.  Beings will no longer be ignorant concerning the nature of sin.  

Yes.

"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. The working out of Satan's rule, its effects upon both men and angels, would show what must be the fruit of setting aside the divine authority. 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..." GC 499

God is sovereign. That mean nothing happens without His permission.  He allowed sin as "a lesson to the universe".  This "experiment" was permitted as a "perpetual safeguard" for future being "to prevent them from being deceived" by the nature of sin, which is the love of self.   

Only after sin already existed.  This doesn't explain why God would set into motion a course of action which would inevitably result in sin to begin with.

[Robert]

pnattmbtc: This explains that God was not 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;

(me: in what sense, contextually?)

that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion.  (EGW)

All EGW is stating is God did withdraw His grace (love) from Lucifer that would entice him to rebel.  God wasn't antagonist.  In this respect He wasn't responsible for Lucifer's rebellion.  

Nevertheless both God & Christ knew that Lucifer would apostatize and become Satan the adversary. Again,  

  "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."

Therefore they are responsible for creating a being they knew would rebel and cause untold misery and woe.  Hence they have assumed the blame until the day of atonement.  

Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

If this were true, then there would be a flaw in the design, which is contradicted by the GC quote, and common sense (since God is perfect).

1] GC isn't the measuring stick (and you know it). The Bible states God is sovereign.  Do you have any idea what that word means?

2] God's design was perfect.  Created free-will beings were risky because God and Christ knew that self-dependency was not only possible, but that it would happen.

3] Your common sense is flawed.

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

 Also, why would a free-will being need to see the results of self-seeking and self-love in the first place? 

"Johnny, that's hot!" ...but Johnny has no concept of "hot" because Johnny is ignorant, at no fault of his own.  The only way for Johnny to understand is to find out....

Self-love, the product of self-sufficiency, sounded wonderful to 1/3 the angels in heaven.  That's a lot of angels...billions and billions, perhaps. They were ignorant concerning the nature of sin.  They had nothing to measure against; they could not see the end result, until the rubber met the road. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

I said: "It will never happen again (i.e., according to God's omniscience) because sin, the love of self, will forever be exposed.  Beings will no longer be ignorant concerning the nature of sin." 

Yes

Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert