Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 I said: 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. But if sin were inevitable (as you state), because of free-will and ignorance concerning the nature of sin, then all I said still applies.... Quote
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) All EGW is stating is God did withdraw His grace (love) from Lucifer that would entice him to rebel. God wasn't antagonist. I have two mistakes that need correcting: What I meant to say was, "All EGW is stating is if God did withdraw His grace (love) from Lucifer that would entice him to rebel. God wasn't antagonistic". Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Robert: 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. 1.Ellen White says that nothing is more clearly taught in Scripture than that God is in no way responsible for sin. This is not limited to that there was no divine withdrawal of grace. This comment is not limiting her comment, but is simply an example of something God did not do which would have made Him responsible for the entrance of sin. 2.Regarding the "from the beginning" comment, you are misreading this, given the context of all EGW has written on the subject. I explained this in detail. I presented various comments regarding risk. Here's one: Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131) Notice that Christ for us "took the risk of failure and eternal loss." "Risk" necessitates uncertainty. Under your conception of things, there can be no divine uncertainty, but in her concept, there was uncertainty. Here statement in DA 26 must conform with her overall concept of risk/uncertainty. I also mentioned the Early Writings meeting of Christ with God when man sinned. Three times Christ met with God, and finally God agreed to allow Christ to come. This makes perfect sense with the concept of risk, because if Christ was to take the risk of failure and eternal loss, that would certainly something God would have to consider seriously. The angel commented to Ellen White that this decision was a struggle for God. Under your concept of things, God would have known from eternity what He was going to do, and there could be no such thing as a divine struggle with a decision, or divinity undertaking risk. 3.The "therefore" doesn't follow, because it is based on a false premise, which can be seen in at least two ways:a.God is in no way responsible for the entrance of sin. Your idea is contradicting this.b.Your idea in incompatible with Christ coming at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 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. 1.a.Regarding sovereignty, sovereignty means different things theologically depending upon one's perspective. In particular, Calvinists view sovereignty very differently than Arminians do. For example, for Calvinists, God's sovereignty trumps free will. For Aminians, this is not the case. Regarding our discussion, you have conflated the question of God's *allowing* sin with the question of His causing it to happen. We are both in agreement that God allowed sin to occur, and, of course, His sovereignty would enter into this. But we are both in agreement on this point, so there is no need for you to bring it up. You keep coming back to it, so, in your mind, you must see some connection to what you are saying with the point I have been making, but I don't know what connection you are seeing. The question I have been addressing is God's *causing* sin to happen. Of course, sovereignty would enter into this as well, but you haven't been connecting sovereignty to this in your comments. 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. You're not using the word "risk" correctly. "Risk" necessitates uncertainty. In your conception of things, there is no uncertainty, hence no risk. 3."Your common sense is flawed." No, not at all. If God's design is not flawed, then it cannot be inevitable that free will beings will sin. This should be easy to follow. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) 1.Ellen White says that nothing is more clearly taught in Scripture than that God is in no way responsible for sin. This is not limited to that there was no divine withdrawal of grace. No, you are wrong. It defines what she stated....It's the context. Ignore it, twist it, but it's still the context. Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) 2.Regarding the "from the beginning" comment, you are misreading this, given the context of all EGW has written on the subject. Nope...it's very plain. You are twisting it.....Shame on you. Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) You're not using the word "risk" correctly. "Risk" necessitates uncertainty. In your conception of things, there is no uncertainty, hence no risk. Risk here was in creating beings with free-wills. They knew the risk; they knew sin would arise, but in order to expose it they allowed it. Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) 3."Your common sense is flawed." No, not at all. If God's design is not flawed, then it cannot be inevitable that free will beings will sin. This should be easy to follow. Well then, since sin did happen, then according to your flawed logic, the natural conclusion is God's design is flawed. No, God & Christ knew that Lucifer would rebel....They are Sovereign. Nothing caught them by surprise. If it did then they are not Sovereign. Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) God is in no way responsible for the entrance of sin. Your idea is contradicting this. God is sovereign. He is responsible for the existence of sin because He created a being He knew would sin. However, He is not the author of sin. ....Christ coming at the risk of failure and eternal loss. I can't find this idea in the Bible....Everything that EGW said should be tested by the Bible....She isn't infallible. Chapter and verse, please..... I found this: "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" From the creation of the world Christ was known as "the lamb slain" before the entrance of sin. His death and resurrection were seen beforehand. There's no risk implied. Isaiah also says, "As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge ( ) the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many (not "might justify the many), As He will bear their iniquities." Is 53:11 Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 1.Ellen White says that nothing is more clearly taught in Scripture than that God is in no way responsible for sin. This is not limited to that there was no divine withdrawal of grace. Robert: No, you are wrong. It defines what she stated....It's the context. Ignore it, twist it, but it's still the context. No, Robert. This should be clear. Let's look at the quote: It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence. Yet enough may be understood concerning both the origin and the final disposition of sin to make fully manifest the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with evil. 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. Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given. It is mysterious, unaccountable; to excuse it is to defend it. Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin. Our only definition of sin is that given in the word of God; it is "the transgression of the law;" it is the outworking of a principle at war with the great law of love which is the foundation of the divine government. First of all, here is the entire paragraph. In looking at something like this, we want to ask ourselves, what is the intent of the author. What are the main points? Here we see the main point in the topic sentence: It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a reason for its existence. and we get to the point of our discussion: Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin and the comment: that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace, no deficiency in the divine government, that gave occasion for the uprising of rebellion. Notice the phrase "no deficiency in the divine government". This cannot be limited to "no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace", but must include anything wrong which God could have done. This should be clear. Let's assume, for example, that you are correct, and the sentence is limited by the comment "that there was no arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace". Then God could have done something else to cause the rebellion, as long as it wasn't an arbitrary withdrawal of divine grace. But it is clear for anyone to see this is not her intent! Notice she says, "Sin is an intruder, for whose presence no reason can be given." This is all-inclusive, as is the statement, "Could excuse for it be found, or cause be shown for its existence, it would cease to be sin." So it should be easy to see that her statements throughout the paragraph are all-inclusive, the point being there is *nothing* God did which let to sin. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 You're not using the word "risk" correctly. "Risk" necessitates uncertainty. In your conception of things, there is no uncertainty, hence no risk. Robert: Risk here was in creating beings with free-wills. They knew the risk; they knew sin would arise, but in order to expose it they allowed it. Your misusing the word "risk" again. "Rick" necessitates uncertainty. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Robert: Well then, since sin did happen, then according to your flawed logic, the natural conclusion is God's design is flawed. This is wrong in several different ways. I'll stick to the most important error. The biggest error you have here is the premise "well then, since sin did happen" and making a conclusion based on that. That's simply incorrect reasoning. The only way any sentence like this could involve correct reasoning would be if I made an argument whose premise were that sin could not happen, but I have not been arguing that sin could not happen, but that sin was not inevitable. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Robert: No, God & Christ knew that Lucifer would rebel....They are Sovereign. Nothing caught them by surprise. If it did then they are not Sovereign. It looks like you are not understanding what "Sovereign" means. You certainly are not using the word correctly here. Being caught by surprise has nothing to do with sovereign. Also, you're use of the phrase "caught by surprise" is inappropriate, as it is clear that God was not "caught by surprise" since God mad provision for its happening. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 .... there is *nothing* God did which let to sin. God & Christ created Lucifer. They knew that he would sin..... Quote
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 ..... sin was not inevitable. You are right, if God had not created free-will beings - especially Lucifer, we wouldn't be living in a fallen world with sin & death.... Quote
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 Me: God is in no way responsible for the entrance of sin. Your idea is contradicting this. Robert: God is sovereign. He is responsible for the existence of sin because He created a being He knew would sin. However, He is not the author of sin. You are often making the point that God is sovereign. You must see this as issue somehow. "Sovereign" has to do with power, not knowledge. To say that God is sovereign means God has absolute power. What do you see in this discussion which would be touching upon God's power? Regarding God being responsible for the existence of sin, this is a chief area of disagreement. I believe a large part of the reason Scripture exists is to demonstrate that God is not responsible for the existence of sin. This is a big thing that God wanted us to get. However, I'm glad you do not also view God as the author of sin. ....Christ coming at the risk of failure and eternal loss. I can't find this idea in the Bible....Everything that EGW said should be tested by the Bible....She isn't infallible. Do you mean to imply by this statement that the Bible writers were infallible? Also, by your response, it appears that you disagree with Ellen White's idea that Christ came at the risk of failure and eternal loss. This is correct, that you disagree with this idea? I'm trying to clarify if you disagree with the idea, or you simply want it to be demonstrated from Scripture. Chapter and verse, please..... I found this: "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" From the creation of the world Christ was known as "the lamb slain" before the entrance of sin. His death and resurrection were seen beforehand. There's no risk implied. Isaiah also says, "As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge ( ) the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many (not "might justify the many), As He will bear their iniquities." Is 53:11 The Isaiah text looks to have nothing to do with the issue of risk, so I won't comment on it. Regarding the Revelation text, this is understood in different ways (e.g., Calvinists like this text to prove predestination). It looks to me that the point of the text is that the plan of salvation was formed from the beginning. Is the intent of the author that this means that sin was inevitable? Clearly not. The text which says that Lucifer was perfect until iniquity was found in him immediatly comes to mind. What is the point of this text, if not to make clear that the responsibility for sin was Lucifer's? But Lucifer could only be responsible fro his sin if it was NOT inevitable. There are other texts where God argues against the idea of inevitability viz a viz judgment. For example, the following: 5Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. 11Now, therefore, say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus says the Lord: Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings. Here God is making the strongest possible argument against the charge of inevitability. He even says He will change His mind if necessary. God could hardly change His mind if the future were single-threaded; there needs to be the possibility of different options occuring, and God reacts according to which option is chosen. This pattern is seen throughout Scripture. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted September 4, 2015 Author Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) It looks like you are not understanding what "Sovereign" means. Oh, am sorry, I should of checked with you first.... You certainly are not using the word correctly here. But of course.... "caught by surprise" is inappropriate, as it is clear that God was not "caught by surprise" since God mad provision for its happening. You are funny.... So God wasn't sure...He made provision, but He had no idea sin would happen. "I'm God...I'm Sovereign, I'm all-knowing, but I'm really not sure that I am really 100% Sovereign and all-knowing. Better makes some provisions...." So we are back to "risk"... God didn't really know; He had a hunch; stocked upon on canned food, water and guns anyway. And then there's the "risk" of Christ failing to save the human race when clearly Isaiah saw no risk: "My Servant (Christ), will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities." Is 53:11 Edited September 4, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted September 4, 2015 Posted September 4, 2015 So God wasn't sure...He made provision, but He had no idea sin would happen. "I'm God...I'm Sovereign, I'm all-knowing, but I'm really not sure that I am really 100% Sovereign and all-knowing. Better makes some provisions...." So we are back to "risk"... God didn't really know; He had a hunch; stocked upon on canned food, water and guns anyway. And then there's the "risk" of Christ failing to save the human race when clearly Isaiah saw no risk: "My Servant (Christ), will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities." Is 53:11 You're being self-contradictory. For example: So God wasn't sure...He made provision, but He had no idea sin would happen. And then there's the "risk" of Christ failing to save the human race when clearly Isaiah saw no risk: "My Servant (Christ), will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities." Is 53:11 So you're thinking here is that EGW was wrong, and Isaiah's statement here is proof of this? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted September 5, 2015 Author Posted September 5, 2015 You're being self-contradictory. No, I was mocking your view..... Quote
Robert Posted September 5, 2015 Author Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) So you're thinking here is that EGW was wrong, and Isaiah's statement here is proof of this? The Bible is the measuring stick of truth...not Ellen White. Edited September 5, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 You're being self-contradictory. Robert: No, I was mocking your view..... How so? So you're thinking here is that EGW was wrong, and Isaiah's statement here is proof of this? Robert: The Bible is the measuring stick of truth...not Ellen White. This isn't responsive to my question. You quote Ellen White like a hit and run driver. When it suits you, you quote her, but as soon as someone shows you you are wrong in your interpretation of what she is saying, you run away, with a statement like "the Bible is the measuring stick of truth." To summarize up to this point, you quoted from Ellen White, DA 26, to try to make a point, but I showed there are other statements in Ellen White's writings which did not match with the interpretation you were tying to apply, specifically that God sent Christ at the risk of failure and eternal loss. Now you are saying you don't see this concept in Scripture (but at least you do acknowledge its being in Ellen White's writings). You mentioned the text in revelation which states that Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, but this would demonstrate that God did not take a risk in sending Christ. To address the question of whether God took a risk in sending Christ, one must consider the question as to what the risk was. The risk was whether or not Christ would succeed in His Mission. Was there a possibility that Christ would fail? If so, then God took a risk. To ask if Christ could have failed is to ask if Christ could have sinned. Was it possible for Christ to have sinned? I believe the Bible clearly teaches that it was, and therefore God did take a risk in sending His Son. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted September 6, 2015 Author Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) You quote Ellen White like a hit and run driver. When it suits you, you quote her, but as soon as someone shows you you are wrong in your interpretation of what she is saying, you run away, with a statement like "the Bible is the measuring stick of truth." You didn't show me that I was wrong.... As to EGW, sure, I quote her when I believe that her statements are in line with the Bible. So? Anyway, the bottom line is that you do not believe that God is Sovereign. You have a diluted view of His sovereignty. God & Christ knew of Lucifer's, turned Satan's, rebellion before they created him. But they did it anyway. Why? I've speculated, but ultimately we will not know until the judgment. No use going on....Patience. Adios amigos!!! Edited September 6, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Anyway, the bottom line is that you do not believe that God is Sovereign. You have a diluted view of His sovereignty. "Sovereignty" means "absolute or supreme power." The view I've been presenting is that the future is not single-threaded/settled/determined. How does the fact that the future is fundamentally different than the past, consisting of possibilities as opposed to being determined, impact God's power? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 You quote Ellen White like a hit and run driver. When it suits you, you quote her, but as soon as someone shows you you are wrong in your interpretation of what she is saying, you run away, with a statement like "the Bible is the measuring stick of truth." Robert: You didn't show me that I was wrong.... Sure I did, with the quotes regarding God's sending His Son at the risk of failure and eternal life. That's where you ran away. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Robert: God & Christ knew of Lucifer's, turned Satan's, rebellion before they created him. But they did it anyway. Why? I've speculated, but ultimately we will not know until the judgment. No use going on....Patience. You're never really dealt with the actual issue here. The problem is that, under your view of things, God could have created the universe in such a way that sin would not exist, and still have free-will beings in so doing. So it's not simply that God supposedly created Lucifer certain that in so doing sin would result, but that God didn't refrain from creating him, certain that in so doing sin would not result. If we take the position that the future is not determined, we don't have these problems. Edited September 6, 2015 by pnattmbtc Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.