Where Calvinists and Arminians are both wrong

[Colossians]

Both Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) and Arminians, assert that Adam was made righteous, and then 'fell'. They are wrong.

Adam was made a sinner from the beginning - that is why he sinned, for a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. Adam brought forth bad fruit.

Adam was made statally in sin, not (yet) legally. In as much as a state requires and invokes ratification and manifestation of itself, such state invoked the act of transgression, at which point he became a sinner from a legal aspect also.

Calvin rationalises that the righteousness that man was made in initially was "mutable". But this is simply trying to make the puzzle fit one's preconceived ideas: it is not deductive, but eisegetic.
Righteousness is the sole property of Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot be mutable, thus "he that is born of God cannot sin" 1 Jo 3:9. Because Adam was not made in Christ (evidenced by his not having partaken of the tree of life which is Christ), he was not righteous; he was merely in a state of not knowing right from wrong. Such state does not qualify as righteousness, any more than a baby's not knowing right from wrong qualifies it for righteousness. Thus Paul tells us that children born of unblievers are unclean (refer 1 Cor 7).

Both Calvinists and Arminians derive too much utility from God's having declared of creation "it was very good". Such a statement of God referred not only to man, but to rocks, trees, and cows, none of which are righteous. The "good" in Genesis simply speaks to functionality: they worked well for their purpose.

Jesus declared: "there is none good but God". This was not to mean "after the fall", but ever and always.
The intent of God's making man was to show forth this very fact: all who are not God will not do according to God's mind, but will do what they want. So then, how did God then reveal this truth?
He put us inside Him, in Christ, and then told us about it.

And why did God make man who would necessarily go against Him?
In order to subject His Son to suffering, and in so doing, to glorify Himself.

[seer]

And why did God make man who would necessarily go against Him?
In order to subject His Son to suffering, and in so doing, to glorify Himself.

So if I beat my son for no reason, it will bring me glory?

[yxboom]

So if I beat my son for no reason, it will bring me glory?
Only if you're God.

[seer]

Only if you're God.


Why did harming His Son bring God glory?

[yxboom]

Why did harming His Son bring God glory?
Because He decided that is how to acquire glory. If you needlessly beat on your kids you will get but a small glimpse into the fear and trembling (read: glory) God proudly receives from His elect.

[Colossians]

Seer,

I'd like to respond to you more, but I don't want to detain you from getting out there and fufilling the great commission. I don't want you to become a hypocrit sitting around on the internet arguing that God loves everyone and that your job is to tell them. I mean, if you really have concern for God's feelings for all those people going to hell, I don't want you to waste time on the net when you could be out there practicing what you preach.
I look forward to a post card from the Congo.

[seer]

Seer,

I'd like to respond to you more, but I don't want to detain you from getting out there and fufilling the great commission. I don't want you to become a hypocrit sitting around on the internet arguing that God loves everyone and that your job is to tell them. I mean, if you really have concern for God's feelings for all those people going to hell, I don't want you to waste time on the net when you could be out there practicing what you preach.
I look forward to a post card from the Congo.

I know of a number of people who have opened to the Gospel because of my internet posts. Second, I speak to people every day about Christ - do you? You obviously don't think that is necessary... But I see you have not delt with my point...

[Colossians]

XYBoom,


Why did harming His Son bring God glory?
Because He decided that is how to acquire glory. If you needlessly beat on your kids you will get but a small glimpse into the fear and trembling (read: glory) God proudly receives from His elect.
You seem to write your own theology. Try reading the bible instead.
Start with this: "It pleased the Him to bruise Him".

Or do you think that your line of obvious reasoning was somehow never previously apparent to us? That somehow we just couldn't grasp the obvious? Or do you think that despite the obvious, we like the unobvious?
Perhaps you should begin to think that maybe there's something you don't know, and that your tireless wit just reveals your ignorance in these matters. (Your humanistic line is not sophisticated, or original. Your comedy is even less gifted.)

So try contributing with some substance for once instead of being the floating wit-maker (there is always one on every site) who likes to drift into threads like willow the wisp and sprout his clever sayings which amount to a subtle form of self-glorification and a cheesy grin that all is well. Your darkness seems to be exceeded only by the darkness of your photo-icon.

[seer]

You seem to write your own theology. Try reading the bible instead.
Start with this: "It pleased the Him to bruise Him".

You don't get it do you C? Yes it please God to have Christ pay for our sin, but if you are correct it was God who made us sin in the first place. He could have just as easily made us to obey and saved His Son a lot of pain. So what is the reason C?

[Colossians]

Seer,

I know of a number of people who have opened to the Gospel because of my internet posts. Second, I speak to people every day about Christ
This is a cop out, and you are quite aware that it is.
You should not be wasting your time here, you should be using EVERY AVAILABLE SECOND. You are simply enjoying yourself when you should be disciplining yourself to use every available minute to save people from a terrible eternal tragedy, and to spare God the burden of lost souls whom Hhe loves. How much do you love God? Not enough to get out there right now hey?

[micah4]

The intent of God's making man was to show forth this very fact: all who are not God will not do according to God's mind, but will do what they want.


Psalms 103:20 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.

But then again, on your theory, it's "according to God's mind" that people do not according to God's mind (whatever that means).


And why did God make man who would necessarily go against Him?


If it was God's plan that man should do X, then how is X considered "going against him"?

[Calvinist4Him]

Both Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) and Arminians, assert that Adam was made righteous, and then 'fell'. They are wrong.

Adam was made a sinner from the beginning - that is why he sinned, for a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. Adam brought forth bad fruit.

You make God out to be a sinner, and His creation bad. How can He who knows no sin, make a sinner? How can a sinner be made by One who is Holy and blameless? God said that what He created is GOOD.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

C., you're espousing heresy, and I wish you were not able to post in this area of the mesageboard. For the most part, I avoid the "World Relgions" area and "Unorthodox" sections to avoid posters like you. Life is confusing enough without sorting through the zillions of heresies.

[yxboom]

XYBoom,
its yxboom. still dont get it apparently.

Why did harming His Son bring God glory?
Because He decided that is how to acquire glory. If you needlessly beat on your kids you will get but a small glimpse into the fear and trembling (read: glory) God proudly receives from His elect.
You seem to write your own theology. Try reading the bible instead.
Start with this: "It pleased the Him to bruise Him".
I tried to start with what you suggested but I did a search on Biblegateway (cause I've never read the Bible and don't know where to get one) and there were no results for "It pleased the Him to bruise Him."

Or do you think that your line of obvious reasoning was somehow never previously apparent to us? That somehow we just couldn't grasp the obvious? Or do you think that despite the obvious, we like the unobvious?
Perhaps you should begin to think that maybe there's something you don't know, and that your tireless wit just reveals your ignorance in these matters. (Your humanistic line is not sophisticated, or original. Your comedy is even less gifted.)

So try contributing with some substance for once instead of being the floating wit-maker (there is always one on every site) who likes to drift into threads like willow the wisp and sprout his clever sayings which amount to a subtle form of self-glorification and a cheesy grin that all is well. Your darkness seems to be exceeded only by the darkness of your photo-icon.
Oclossians it is a pity to see that you are too caught up on your milk suckling that you are not capable of reading the meat of my reply. You dont see the truth of what Ive said because you have yet to receive eyes to see. You are still blinded by sin and need to come to the knowledge of the truth. When you are given the eyes to see and the palatte to eat the meat of the Word you may come back and respond to my post with thanksgiving for my willingness to share with you the hidden things of God.

[seer]

This is a cop out, and you are quite aware that it is.

There are just as many sinners right outside my front door and lurking on this message board as there are in the Congo... Wake up boy...

And tell me C - why are you disobeying "THE GREAT COMMISSION?" It's ok for you to reject this command?

[Colossians]

If it was God's plan that man should do X, then how is X considered "going against him"?
Because X = "they shall go against me".
Funny about that.

Or are you telling us that when Christ shouted "my God my God why hast thou forsaken me?", He was wrong?

[Colossians]

Mr Boom boom,


I tried to start with what you suggested but I did a search on Biblegateway (cause I've never read the Bible and don't know where to get one) and there were no results for "It pleased the Him to bruise”
Call the police.


it is a pity to see that you are too caught up on your milk suckling that you are not capable of reading the meat of my reply.
Oh the glorious MEAT of the self-proclaimed oracle: the wit-maker who drifts around theology sites without a bible, convincing himself he is on a mission to correct the Body of Christ, blocking out his inner conscience that perhaps he is hanging around the Body of Christ because he feels an eternal void deep down inside that needs to be filled with something other than batman and witty quips of nothingness.
Good for you Mr Boom Boom. You keep on your mission.

[Colossians]

Calvinist4Him,

You make God out to be a sinner, and His creation bad. How can He who knows no sin, make a sinner? How can a sinner be made by One who is Holy and blameless? God said that what He created is GOOD.
It is evident you have not read the post properly. Esp from your last sentence.

[roddmann]

Why do I get the feeling that someone who espouses such a twisted view of Scripture will likely end up on the top of a supermarket, wearing fatigues and toting an M-16?

Of all the blasphemous representations of God I have heard and read, this one takes the prize.

I hope you're not following the example you believe the Bible presents and seriously beating your kids or other peoples' kids or acting out any of this IRL. If so, someone please call the cops. :eek:

[Colossians]

Rodmann,

If youre going to come to a theology site, expect to learn more than "Jesus loves the little children".

It is quite transparent that your asserted "twists of scripture" on my part, are simply a product of your imagination. For the scriptures are there, and your refutation is not.

You are obviously a fundamentalist who believes what your pastor tells you. Try thinking a little more.. it won't hurt your brain.

[infide]

Both Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) and Arminians, assert that Adam was made righteous, and then 'fell'. They are wrong.

So where did Adam fall from?

Adam was made a sinner from the beginning - that is why he sinned, for a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. Adam brought forth bad fruit.

That passage (Matthew 7) was talking about false prophets. How can you apply that to all things unqualified?

Adam was made statally in sin, not (yet) legally. In as much as a state requires and invokes ratification and manifestation of itself, such state invoked the act of transgression, at which point he became a sinner from a legal aspect also.

This sounds like Calvinist theological nonsense. What the heck does "statally in sin" mean? How can someone be in a state of sin without having sinned? Sinning is about actions and thoughts of disobedience.

Calvin rationalises that the righteousness that man was made in initially was "mutable". But this is simply trying to make the puzzle fit one's preconceived ideas: it is not deductive, but eisegetic.
Righteousness is the sole property of Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot be mutable, thus "he that is born of God cannot sin" 1 Jo 3:9. Because Adam was not made in Christ (evidenced by his not having partaken of the tree of life which is Christ), he was not righteous; he was merely in a state of not knowing right from wrong. Such state does not qualify as righteousness, any more than a baby's not knowing right from wrong qualifies it for righteousness. Thus Paul tells us that children born of unblievers are unclean (refer 1 Cor 7).

Maybe Adam was statally neutral? Maybe theres three states and not two. Anyway, i just dont see how you could justify this stuff. You are misusing Scripture.

Both Calvinists and Arminians derive too much utility from God's having declared of creation "it was very good". Such a statement of God referred not only to man, but to rocks, trees, and cows, none of which are righteous. The "good" in Genesis simply speaks to functionality: they worked well for their purpose.

So if a human being works well for their purpose (we might think our purpose is to Love God and do the work of God) then how is that not good or righteous? Where do you get off throwing states of sin into the picture? its not there. youre simply reading into it.

The intent of God's making man was to show forth this very fact: all who are not God will not do according to God's mind, but will do what they want. So then, how did God then reveal this truth?
He put us inside Him, in Christ, and then told us about it.

Why would God expect man to be God? Does God not know He is creating?

Further, it is clear that it is unclear what your metaphors of "put us inside Him" and such actually mean. Do you mean something platonic about that? Are you suggesting that human souls are not created but are eternal entities? I cant make heads or tails of these strange things you are saying.

And why did God make man who would necessarily go against Him?
In order to subject His Son to suffering, and in so doing, to glorify Himself.

So God couldnt accomplish the Son suffering without man being disobedient by a necessity of nature?

Further, we might wonder why God judges creatures for being and doing exactly as He created. I think your view destroys ethics.

peace,
jd

[Calvinist4Him]

It is evident you have not read the post properly. Esp from your last sentence.

I read your post loud and clear. It's evident to me, that you do not desire to enguage the questions I asked, which have their basis on your comments, and how your comments are in conflict with what is written in the Scriptures.

[Colossians]

C4him,

You have not read the post properly. It is clear. If you had, you would not have asked what you have asked. Your mind has a knee in it which has jerked up in front of any serious analysis. Until such conventional knee sits back down, you are not able to digest what has been written.

[technomage]

Adam was made statally in sin, not (yet) legally.

Then God created sin. Sin, being a creation of God, is then also classed as "very good."

[Colossians]

Then God created sin. Sin, being a creation of God, is then also classed as "very good."
Yes your point is logically constistent, and is therefore correct.
Such point is accomodated in my having said that the "very good" of Genesis speaks to function, not righteousness.
When God made that which was not Him, He made necessarily a sinner. Such sinner, and the sin associated therewith, was very good for its purpose: it would provide the necessary means to crucify His Son.

So then we have "I create evil" Is 45:7, and understand that such evil is functionally very good for its purpose.

[seer]

When God made that which was not Him, He made necessarily a sinner. Such sinner, and the sin associated therewith, was very good for its purpose: it would provide the necessary means to crucify His Son.

Why was it necessary for God to beat and kill His Son?

[technomage]

Then God created sin. Sin, being a creation of God, is then also classed as "very good."
Yes your point is logically constistent, and is therefore correct.
Such point is accomodated in my having said that the "very good" of Genesis speaks to function, not righteousness.

Hmm ... my knowledge of Hebrew isn't perfect, but to the best of my understanding, the Hebrew will not accomodate such a translation. The Hebrew for "very good" [m'd twb ... I can't do the vowel points] speaks of appropriateness or specifically of moral quality--indeed, the two words together can be translated "perfect," in both a utilitarian and a moral sense.

And the further problem is that, in Judeo-Christian theology, something cannot be both morally "bad" and functionally "good." This is a distinction that is possible in English, but not in Hebrew. But to verify that, let me get one of the members of the forum who reads and speaks Hebrew to review my translation and logic.

When God made that which was not Him, He made necessarily a sinner. Such sinner, and the sin associated therewith, was very good for its purpose: it would provide the necessary means to crucify His Son.

Then by your logic, God is the author of sin?

So then we have "I create evil" Is 45:7, and understand that such evil is functionally very good for its purpose.

And I do have to correct this: "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is a mistranslation in the King James. The word used (ra') is better translated as "calamity" or "injury," as opposed to "peace" earlier in the verse.

[yxboom]

Hmm ... my knowledge of Hebrew isn't perfect, but to the best of my understanding, the Hebrew will not accomodate such a translation. The Hebrew for "very good" [m'd twb ... I can't do the vowel points] speaks of appropriateness or specifically of moral quality--indeed, the two words together can be translated "perfect," in both a utilitarian and a moral sense.

And the further problem is that, in Judeo-Christian theology, something cannot be both morally "bad" and functionally "good." This is a distinction that is possible in English, but not in Hebrew. But to verify that, let me get one of the members of the forum who reads and speaks Hebrew to review my translation and logic.



Then by your logic, God is the author of sin?



And I do have to correct this: "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is a mistranslation in the King James. The word used (ra') is better translated as "calamity" or "injury," as opposed to "peace" earlier in the verse.
you have an "e" missing after the "w" in "m'd twb" :hehe:

[micah4]

Then God created sin. Sin, being a creation of God, is then also classed as "very good."
Yes your point is logically constistent, and is therefore correct.
...
So then we have "I create evil" Is 45:7, and understand that such evil is functionally very good for its purpose.

I applaud you, Colossians; I have much more respect for a calvinist who is not afraid to plainly admit the logical conclusion of their theology as you have affirmed here, namely that: evil is good. I respect your willingness to gut it out and say that straight up, without wriggling and worming away from it as so many are prone to do.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;

Unfortunately, you're wrong. I hope you'll reconsider.

[micah4]

If it was God's plan that man should do X, then how is X considered "going against him"?
Because X = "they shall go against me".
Funny about that.


Quite. So in "going against them", they're doing what God wanted, thereby simultaneously working for god, and against god. So is God divided against himself? I forget how that saying goes; whoever is against me is actually working for me, and whoever is for me goes against me, or something like that? Was that not quite right?


Or are you telling us that when Christ shouted "my God my God why hast thou forsaken me?", He was wrong?


Wrong about what? I don't see the corellation here.

[micah4]

When God made that which was not Him, He made necessarily a sinner.


Where does this necessity arise from? Are the stars, the moon, and the rocks of the earth necessarily sinners by virtue of not being God?

[technomage]

you have an "e" missing after the "w" in "m'd twb" :hehe:

Justin -->:whack:<-- yxboom

Besides which, if the "e" belonged there, I couldn't afford to buy it right now. Like the early Hebrews and the Welsh, I'm poor enough that I can't afford to buy a vowel. :hehe:

[Colossians]

Seer,

Why was it necessary for God to beat and kill His Son?
So that His Son might learn obedience.

[Colossians]

CupofMystery,


The Hebrew for "very good" [m'd twb ... I can't do the vowel points] speaks of appropriateness or specifically of moral quality—indeed
Any argument on word meanings is usually redundant and one which tries to make things fit a desired outcome, and yours here is no exception.
No rendering of scripture is determined by words, but by scripture (whether OT or NT) interpretting scripture (whether OT or NT). When we come to theology, we do not come to look at words, but concepts promulgated in a very intricate cross-substantiation throughout the entire bible.
Accordingly, when “very good” refers to utility, it refers to utility; when it refers to righteousness, it refers to righteousness. There is no hint in the words themselves. The meaning must be deduced from the greater counsel of scripture, which clearly tells us that God is amoral, and which is why God told Adam to not eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Accordingly you also confuse the notion of "moral" with "righteous": a moral being cannot be righteous, for a moral being is one who contains the knowledge of the law, and "by the law is the knowledge of sin". Thus it was not possible to obtain the knowledge of good and evil (morality) via any other means except transgression.
So your reasoning is circular: you think “very good” refers to morality, because you think God is moral. Such reasoning is not deductive, and therefore errant.
You need to understand that if God made another Adam right now from scratch, he would go and sin just like the first Adam. Which tells us that no-one who is not God can abstain from sinning against God. Or else you must tell us why God put a dirty big tree in the garden which man was not supposed to eat from, but which God knew he would eat from. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that God knew man was a sinner from the outset would it?







And the further problem is that, in Judeo-Christian theology, something cannot be both morally "bad" and functionally "good."
Again circular reasoning: “things which are functionally good are morally good, therefore when God said it was good, it was both functionally good and morally good”.
This thread is designed to show you that such preconceptions are wrong: to wit, “there is none good but God”.







This is a distinction that is possible in English, but not in Hebrew.
Rubbish. The scope of the adjectives is determined by context, specifically the entire bible’s message that there can never be anyone good except God. The adjectives in Genesis spoke of inanimate objects, animate non-spiritual creatures, and man. The same adjectives are used for all three aspects severally throughout the OT.
Your reasoning is again circular: “man is both moral and physical, therefore ‘very good man’ means 'very good moral and physical man' ”. Redundant argument which begs the question: framing as argument the premise you purport to prove.







When God made that which was not Him, He made necessarily a sinner. Such sinner, and the sin associated therewith, was very good for its purpose: it would provide the necessary means to crucify His Son.
Then by your logic, God is the author of sin?
You need to understand that sin is primarily a state: it is anyone who is not God, so of course He authored sin.
You also need to understand the definition of the motional aspect of sin: sin is any act against Christ. God crucified Christ, which to us who are the creature and not the Creator, and seen to be carried out at the hands of man at Golgotha, was sin. From God’s viewpoint however, His killing of His Son is not sin: the Father can do what He likes with His Son, for He is His source. Thus if Abraham had killed Isaac, it would not have been sin. And thus Rom 9:20.









So then we have "I create evil" Is 45:7, and understand that such evil is functionally very good for its purpose.
And I do have to correct this: "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is a mistranslation in the King James. The word used (ra') is better translated as "calamity" or "injury," as opposed to "peace" earlier in the verse.
You should assume that this sought of argument is quite well and very long ago within my theological repertoire. Accordingly it is you who has to be corrected: your idea is both linguistically and logically faulty.

Linguistically:
One minute you tell us that “very good” cannot simply mean “functionally very good”, but here you switch feet and tell us that the word “rah” which is used almost exclusively in the entire OT for every act and thought of wickedness of man, is restricted to things like falling off your bike or a crop failure when Isaiah uses it at 45:7. Thus you reveal your ‘reasoned’ approach is ostensible only: it is merely a disguised form of conventionalistic bias.

Logically:
Even if “rah” meant “calamity”, most calamity comes from man, which in turn comes from man’s evil thoughts (it is not speaking of blow-flies, droughts, or meteor showers, but is contrasted with “peace”). And this is why time and again in scripture we see that God brought about acts of evil in man and the commensurate evil thoughts which caused them.
The KJV’s rendering is therefore the most correct, for it is more fully generic. Versions such as the Non-inspired Version (NIV) and any other Mickey Mouse paraphrase, are not translations, but eisegetic interpretations resulting from translators who come to scripture with school-of-thought bias from their bible seminaries. Like you.






Overall, your analysis does not allow itself to be carried to proper/natural conclusions, but truncates itself in deference to conventionality.

[technomage]

Colossians,

The theology must be rooted in the words, else all is eisegesis and personal opinion. However, I am not here to be impressed by your debating "repetoire"--which is a good thing. It's not very impressive when your sole argument consists of "The words mean whatever I want them to mean so they can fit my doctrine."

The Hebrew-speaker I mentioned will review my post when he has an opportunity to do so (and thanks, in advance, to him).

[seer]

God crucified Christ, which to us who are the creature and not the Creator, and seen to be carried out at the hands of man at Golgotha, was sin. From God’s viewpoint however, His killing of His Son is not sin: the Father can do what He likes with His Son, for He is His source.

Again Colossians, why did God need to torture and kill His Son? Why was it necessary?

[technomage]

Why was it necessary for God to beat and kill His Son?
So that His Son might learn obedience.

Was the Son, then, not perfect?

What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, was that the Son was not also God.

[Chappie]

If I have learned anything from this thread, it is that Satan is busy. My eyes have seen spiritual death in all of its ugliness..

[FlimFlamboyant]

Both Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) and Arminians, assert that Adam was made righteous, and then 'fell'. They are wrong.

Adam was made a sinner from the beginning - that is why he sinned, for a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. Adam brought forth bad fruit.

Adam was made statally in sin, not (yet) legally. In as much as a state requires and invokes ratification and manifestation of itself, such state invoked the act of transgression, at which point he became a sinner from a legal aspect also.
:sigh: Look... this is very, very simple.

(Rom 5:12-16) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Forget your rationalizations; forget Calvin's rationalizations, forget Arminian rationalizations; just follow the passage. This is elementary stuff, really. Just work backwards.

Through the offence of one, many be dead.
Death entered the world through sin.
Sin entered the world through Adam.

So.... sin entered the world through death which entered through Adam's offense. Therefore, it was by Adam's offense that sin entered the world. You know what that means? Yes, boys and girls, that means sin was NOT in the world before Adam's transgression. Thus, Adam was not a sinner before he transgressed. How do I know that? Because sin had not entered the world until he transgressed. See how easy that was? Now have a look at this:

(Rom 8:20,21) For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Adam was made subject to vanity, not in vanity. He was made corruptable, not corrupted. The possibility to transgress was there, but there was no sin driving him to do so as we have today. Though I don't know that I would go so far as to classify Adam as being created "righteous", he was most certainly not created a sinner.

Both Calvinists and Arminians derive too much utility from God's having declared of creation "it was very good". Such a statement of God referred not only to man, but to rocks, trees, and cows, none of which are righteous. The "good" in Genesis simply speaks to functionality: they worked well for their purpose.
A Cup of Mystery brought up a very good point on this matter that you quite frankly had a very poor answer for:

Then God created sin. Sin, being a creation of God, is then also classed as "very good."
Yes your point is logically constistent, and is therefore correct.

Such point is accomodated in my having said that the "very good" of Genesis speaks to function, not righteousness.
When God made that which was not Him, He made necessarily a sinner. Such sinner, and the sin associated therewith, was very good for its purpose: it would provide the necessary means to crucify His Son.

So then we have "I create evil" Is 45:7, and understand that such evil is functionally very good for its purpose.

(Pro 6:16-19) These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

So now we have God creating things that he hates; things that are an abomination to him, yet calling them "good", because they serve his purpose. There are numerous problems with this (aside from the obvious in the above passage). First of all:

(Gen 6:6,7) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Would God intentionally create man in the very sinful condition that caused the great grief that he felt as a result? Would he have repented of the fact that even created man to begin with? Would he have second thoughts if he had intentionally created Adam that way? (Geez, here I am going all OVT on everyone :eek:)

Secondly, we have Isaiah 5:20, a great verse which Micah brought up earlier:

(Isa 5:20) Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Thirdly, we have the misuse of Isaiah 45:7, as Cup had mentioned before:

(Isa 45:7) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The opposite of light is darkness, thus the opposite of peace is.... unrighteousness??? Please be sensible. If the intended meaning were what you come away from the verse with, it would've read "I make righteousness, and create evil". As far as that goes, you don't even need to consult an alternate translation; just look at one of Webster's 1828 dictionary definitions of the word "evil":

3. Unfortunate; unhappy; producing sorrow, distress, injury or calamity; as evil tidings; evil arrows; evil days.

... Certainly the opposite of "peace", keeping things flowing nicely within the context.

[roddmann]

Rodmann,

If youre going to come to a theology site, expect to learn more than "Jesus loves the little children".

It is quite transparent that your asserted "twists of scripture" on my part, are simply a product of your imagination. For the scriptures are there, and your refutation is not.

You are obviously a fundamentalist who believes what your pastor tells you. Try thinking a little more.. it won't hurt your brain.

Apologies C. I must have misunderstood you. I won't try to determine what you might be, "obviously" or otherwise. I just came away with the mistaken impression that you thought the God of Creation whose chief characteristic is love liked nothing more than to harm his only begotten Son because in the act of harming Him this very act brought God pleasure. Alternatively God is a God of justice and saw no other way than the cross to redeem mankind and the pleasure He experienced was a result of redeeming the treasure that He seeks - us!

So once again, sorry for interpreting your text to mean God is brutal, sadistic and derives pleasure bruising his own Son. I maligned you and for that I am very sorry. Will you forgive me?

[GoBahnsen]

I applaud you, Colossians; I have much more respect for a calvinist who is not afraid to plainly admit the logical conclusion of their theology as you have affirmed here, namely that: evil is good. I respect your willingness to gut it out and say that straight up, without wriggling and worming away from it as so many are prone to do.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;

Unfortunately, you're wrong. I hope you'll reconsider.Not sure I want to jump into the fray here, I could get my head chopped off, and I am fond of my head.

I don't want to get on Colossians bad side either, I do think he makes some valid arguments, though I can't say I always follow him. It was an interesting OP. I have never heard that position stated before. Hmmm...Adam created a sinner?

I guess it's the age old question, is a horse thief a horse thief before he steals the horse or after? Obviously Adam or should I say Eve, fell before she ate. The sin was in her heart before she bit down. The mystery is there, why Eve? Why did you ever do it? Why did you follow her Adam?

And thus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world comes into the garden and says "Adam, where are you?" Who can really explain these things? I can't. But it is apparent to me that it all passed through God's mind before He created. He has a grand plan and He is working it out flawlessly.

As an aside, I was having a dream last night and I was witnessing to an unbeliever in it. I was a cop in the dream and the unbeliever was my supervisor.
The intersesting thing to me, is that it was my dream, but my mind also created the unbeliever in my dream and all his words of doubt. My point is, am I guilty of his sin of unbelief because I created him in my dream? Do you see what I'm saying?

I think there is a parallel here. Everything, Pharaoh and his sin, John the Baptist and his faithfulness, all passed through the mind of God before creation. They are His caracters in His play, if you will. Just like I created an unbeliever in my dream and all of his words of unbelief, they ultimately found there origin in my mind. The supervisor was his own person, but I created him. He did not exist outside of my mind, yet he was the sinner in my mind. Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't want to take this too far, because I don't really know what I'm talking about anyway. Just food for thought and I hope I don't lose my head over it.

[A Cup of No]

Not sure I want to jump into the fray here, I could get my head chopped off, and I am fond of my head.

I don't want to get on Colossians bad side either, I do think he makes some valid arguments, though I can't say I always follow him. It was an interesting OP. I have never heard that position stated before. Hmmm...Adam created a sinner?

I guess it's the age old question, is a horse thief a horse thief before he steals the horse or after? Obviously Adam or should I say Eve, fell before she ate. The sin was in her heart before she bit down. The mystery is there, why Eve? Why did you ever do it? Why did you follow her Adam?

And thus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world comes into the garden and says "Adam, where are you?" Who can really explain these things? I can't. But it is apparent to me that it all passed through God's mind before He created. He has a grand plan and He is working it out flawlessly.

As an aside, I was having a dream last night and I was witnessing to an unbeliever in it. I was a cop in the dream and the unbeliever was my supervisor.
The intersesting thing to me, is that it was my dream, but my mind also created the unbeliever in my dream and all his words of doubt. My point is, am I guilty of his sin of unbelief because I created him in my dream? Do you see what I'm saying?

I think there is a parallel here. Everything, Pharaoh and his sin, John the Baptist and his faithfulness, all passed through the mind of God before creation. They are His caracters in His play, if you will. Just like I created an unbeliever in my dream and all of his words of unbelief, they ultimately found there origin in my mind. The supervisor was his own person, but I created him. He did not exist outside of my mind, yet he was the sinner in my mind. Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't want to take this too far, because I don't really know what I'm talking about anyway. Just food for thought and I hope I don't lose my head over it.

*chops off head*

[smaller]

Both Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) and Arminians, assert that Adam was made righteous, and then 'fell'. They are wrong.

Adam was made a sinner from the beginning - that is why he sinned, for a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. Adam brought forth bad fruit.

Having glazed through this sorry mess of a thread I find a few basic conclusions starting with one EXTREMELY FATAL FLAW

A. Adam was God's son (Luke 3:38.) Your bold statement above should show it's logical fault in the light of this fact. If God is Adam's Father, then God is The Father of sinners. It's not possible for Adam to be a sinner without direct implications to The Spawner of this offspring. God is not The Father of sinners yet Adam, who sinned, remained God's son (as if it is possible for God to permanently lose a child.)

A much more logical conclusion is that the flesh of Adam was made subject to outside influences by THE DEVIL who was also in The Garden. hello.

B. God made ALL THINGS, including EVIL. Arminians in general have a hard time swallowing this very Biblical and easily scripturally proven position and they have a variety of excuses for God in this matter. The fact can very well be that God does indeed continue to create EVIL and that He is Great enough to CAUSE good to come from it.

This conclusion does not make EVIL good anymore than it makes CRAP taste good becuase it makes APPLES grow from trees.

and last but not least...

C. I am glad to see at least one Calvinist stand up to your nonsense baloney garbage Colossians. Congrats C4Him.

and as usual

enjoy!

smaller

[GoBahnsen]

*chops off head*I knew it was coming, but I said it anyway.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Having glazed through this sorry mess of a thread I find a few basic conclusions starting with one EXTREMELY FATAL FLAW
So you decided to contribute with a few of your own? :hehe:

[technomage]

I knew it was coming, but I said it anyway.
Don't worry ... we'll have Cup of No sew your head back on.

Then you can be Bahnsenstein. :smile:

[smaller]

So you decided to contribute with a few of your own? :hehe:

I thought you had learned of perfection through sufferings by now...;)

I suspect that both A and B bother you considerably but you can't quite put your fingers on it...

[Chappie]

Not sure I want to jump into the fray here, I could get my head chopped off, and I am fond of my head.

I don't want to get on Colossians bad side either, I do think he makes some valid arguments, though I can't say I always follow him. It was an interesting OP. I have never heard that position stated before. Hmmm...Adam created a sinner?

I guess it's the age old question, is a horse thief a horse thief before he steals the horse or after? Obviously Adam or should I say Eve, fell before she ate. The sin was in her heart before she bit down. The mystery is there, why Eve? Why did you ever do it? Why did you follow her Adam?

If yes.. Then God must have been the real horse thief. After all, it was his Idea first..... He thought of it before "A & E".. Had it not been for him, A & E never would have thought of it...

[infide]

The meaning must be deduced from the greater counsel of scripture, which clearly tells us that God is amoral, and which is why God told Adam to not eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God is amoral? Thats foolish. I dont even know what that could mean. Being a moral being does not mean one need to transgress, just that you KNOW what is evil. Knowing is not doing. How exactly could God command morality (think ten commandments for example) if God does not know what it would be evil to do? "Do not murder" because murder is evil. An amoral being would command no such thing.

Accordingly you also confuse the notion of "moral" with "righteous": a moral being cannot be righteous, for a moral being is one who contains the knowledge of the law, and "by the law is the knowledge of sin". Thus it was not possible to obtain the knowledge of good and evil (morality) via any other means except transgression.
So your reasoning is circular: you think “very good” refers to morality, because you think God is moral. Such reasoning is not deductive, and therefore errant.
You need to understand that if God made another Adam right now from scratch, he would go and sin just like the first Adam. Which tells us that no-one who is not God can abstain from sinning against God. Or else you must tell us why God put a dirty big tree in the garden which man was not supposed to eat from, but which God knew he would eat from. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that God knew man was a sinner from the outset would it?

pure conjecture. You have no idea what another Adam would do.

Further, it is foolish to think that non-deductive reasoning is necessarily errant. Inductive reasoning can also be rational, and give certainty of the truth of something. You use this kind of reasoning every day unknowingly.

God didnt put the tree in the garden to hurt Adam. This is the problem with being too literal with these ancient passages. The TKGE represents the Law. The TOL represents God's own supernatural nourishment by His Spirit what Jesus calls "the true manna from heaven" - Christ Himself. To feed on the Law is death. To try to be spirtually nourished by Law is death. To be spiritually nourished by God in Christ is life eternal.

And the further problem is that, in Judeo-Christian theology, something cannot be both morally "bad" and functionally "good."
Again circular reasoning: “things which are functionally good are morally good, therefore when God said it was good, it was both functionally good and morally good”.
This thread is designed to show you that such preconceptions are wrong: to wit, “there is none good but God”.

God grows righteousness within, via His Spirit and Word.

There is none essentially good (that is without another) except God. Jesus is making a claim of deity there, dont get sidetracked.

peace,
jd

[GoBahnsen]

If yes.. Then God must have been the real horse thief. After all, it was his Idea first..... He thought of it before "A & E".. Had it not been for him, A & E never would have thought of it...I'm not really sure if I'm comfortable with the "God the Author" model. In that model, God is like the author of a book. He writes in evil characters and good ones. We don't say that the author of a murder mystery, is evil for thinking up the story line. It is his story and he has created evil characters, but the author is good in his intentions. I'm not sure about that model though, but then who can be sure about God's ways after a given point?

Sometimes all we can do is affirm various truths, like God is good. True! God cannot sin. True! I will proclaim those truths, but I cannot always reconcile God's activity and explain how it is that God is always good and never sins. It's hard to make it look good if men are not free to choose their own dsstinies.

I think the Arminian models speculate and end up with autonomous freewill as the hub of the wheel in explaining these difficult issues. I think THAT speculation is flawed and easily dismantled by Scripture. Of course the Arminians don't appreciate any attempts at dismantling their sacred cow.

God has displayed His rights over the clay time and again. Men's wills posing no problem to God whatsoever. He is doing all His good pleasure in the earth.

[roddmann]

Not sure I want to jump into the fray here, I could get my head chopped off, and I am fond of my head.

I don't want to get on Colossians bad side either, I do think he makes some valid arguments, though I can't say I always follow him. It was an interesting OP. I have never heard that position stated before. Hmmm...Adam created a sinner?

I guess it's the age old question, is a horse thief a horse thief before he steals the horse or after? Obviously Adam or should I say Eve, fell before she ate. The sin was in her heart before she bit down. The mystery is there, why Eve? Why did you ever do it? Why did you follow her Adam?

And thus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world comes into the garden and says "Adam, where are you?" Who can really explain these things? I can't. But it is apparent to me that it all passed through God's mind before He created. He has a grand plan and He is working it out flawlessly.

As an aside, I was having a dream last night and I was witnessing to an unbeliever in it. I was a cop in the dream and the unbeliever was my supervisor.
The intersesting thing to me, is that it was my dream, but my mind also created the unbeliever in my dream and all his words of doubt. My point is, am I guilty of his sin of unbelief because I created him in my dream? Do you see what I'm saying?

I think there is a parallel here. Everything, Pharaoh and his sin, John the Baptist and his faithfulness, all passed through the mind of God before creation. They are His caracters in His play, if you will. Just like I created an unbeliever in my dream and all of his words of unbelief, they ultimately found there origin in my mind. The supervisor was his own person, but I created him. He did not exist outside of my mind, yet he was the sinner in my mind. Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't want to take this too far, because I don't really know what I'm talking about anyway. Just food for thought and I hope I don't lose my head over it.

Wisdom. Very good, thank you for this piece, very insightful & helpful.

[Chappie]

I'm not really sure if I'm comfortable with the "God the Author" model. In that model, God is like the author of a book. He writes in evil characters and good ones. We don't say that the author of a murder mystery, is evil for thinking up the story line. It is his story and he has created evil characters, but the author is good in his intentions. I'm not sure about that model though, but then who can be sure about God's ways after a given point?

Creation is not a story line, it is a reality.. Infinitely different from a storyline.

Sometimes all we can do is affirm various truths, like God is good. True! God cannot sin. True! I will proclaim those truths, but I cannot always reconcile God's activity and explain how it is that God is always good and never sins. It's hard to make it look good if men are not free to choose their own destinies.

My problem is when it is false doctrine that creates the scenarios that you cannot explain..

Truth be told, it is impossible to make evil look good when it is revealed in the light of day. (truth)

I think the Arminian models speculate and end up with autonomous freewill as the hub of the wheel in explaining these difficult issues. I think THAT speculation is flawed and easily dismantled by Scripture. Of course the Arminians don't appreciate any attempts at dismantling their sacred cow.

When the sacred cow attempting the dismantling is worse than the sacred cow that it is trying to dismantle, I would say that you definitely have a problem..

God has displayed His rights over the clay time and again. Men's wills posing no problem to God whatsoever. He is doing all His good pleasure in the earth.

God indeed has displayed his rights (sovereignty) over the clay. Which of course does not prove a single claim as to what he did that you make. It is easy here to see that your statement does not prove a thing Goba..

[RumTumTugger]

This is the more appropiate forum for this subject. So I have moved it.

[micah4]

...it is apparent to me that it all passed through God's mind before He created. He has a grand plan and He is working it out flawlessly.

As an aside, I was having a dream last night and I was witnessing to an unbeliever in it. I was a cop in the dream and the unbeliever was my supervisor. The intersesting thing to me, is that it was my dream, but my mind also created the unbeliever in my dream and all his words of doubt. My point is, am I guilty of his sin of unbelief because I created him in my dream? Do you see what I'm saying?

I think there is a parallel here. Everything, Pharaoh and his sin, John the Baptist and his faithfulness, all passed through the mind of God before creation. They are His caracters in His play, if you will. Just like I created an unbeliever in my dream and all of his words of unbelief, they ultimately found there origin in my mind. The supervisor was his own person, but I created him. He did not exist outside of my mind, yet he was the sinner in my mind. Do you see what I'm saying?


Sorry, GB, I don't think the analogy is appropriate at all. Characters in a play or actors in a movie pinch themselves so they can get watery eyes and tear up for the camera. Nobody's harmed by the words in a script, or a plotline running through some writers head. After the scene is over, the fake blood washes off; the bruises are only make-up. I can imagine a thousand stories, a write a thousand scripts, film them, perform them; and stamp them all with the true disclaimer: "No humans were harmed in the production of this feature". There is no evil in these things.

The "characters" in God's play? Our tears are real, GB.

[Bernie]

Jumping in a bit late here, but in perusing this thread, the initial post caught my attention....

"Both Calvinists (including John Calvin himself) and Arminians, assert that Adam was made righteous, and then 'fell'. They are wrong."

Actually, I think they're right. You're looking at it the wrong way. I see everything that exists as information. In this light, everything was created in a state of perfection, or perfect information (very good). You present no evidence that Adam began a sinner, and in fact the Genesis account lines up very well with the view of initial perfection. In a state of perfect information, there was no concept--nor any need of the concept--of "righteousness". Good tree/bad tree had no meaning at that point. Righteousness=true information, and when all things are true (perfect), there is no point of reference against which to judge something "unrighteous". In fact, I believe we're being saved from our false information, which abandons its technical and sterile "false" sense and becomes "evil" in the flagrant or dynamic sense in intellect [yeah, dualism is alive]. Righteousness as we understand the term didn't come into existence until the fall, or first instance of sin, when false information was introduced into the creation. In saying that Adam did not possess God's righteousness, I think all you're saying is that he did not possess God's character and essence...even though his own essence was itself perfect and true. But this is old hat.

In a state of perfect (true) information, existing within a creation of perfect information, Adam had a face-to-face relationship with God....because all "very good" or perfect. God told Adam he'd die the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he didn't die physically until he was 930 years old. But he did die that day, evidenced by the fact that he and Eve were driven from the garden....why?....because their spirit had, in making the only truly free [and wrong] choice in human history, been contaminated with false information, allowed in from an exterior source, but allowed in all the same. False data has no place in the sort of relationship Adam had with God in the garden, and we all suffer for it. Denominations and sects hold a variety of often conflicting beliefs. Even though there's some agreement, we're all mostly in the dark in our relationship with God and in our knowledge of higher truth for this same reason. In Adam, it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that the spiritual pathology of false data spread causally from spirit-to-intellect-to-matter [body], and so on through all creation because logic, experience and the Scripture record strongly reinforce the idea.

I don't see that the Gen account supports the notion that Adam was born a sinner. In fact, I'll repeat at the danger of being repetitive that the concept of information as losing an increasing measure of its "true" quality to a gradually encroaching pathological "falsity" corresponds to the gradual declination in mind and matter, re the geneological accounts in Gen 5 and following.

"Adam was made statally in sin, not (yet) legally. In as much as a state requires and invokes ratification and manifestation of itself, such state invoked the act of transgression, at which point he became a sinner from a legal aspect also."

???? What evidence do you propose to support this? Do you mean that sin existed in him potentially? I don't see this as a reasonable argument. I'm not sure what Calvin meant exactly by the notion that Adam's righteousness was mutable, but I don't see any immediate problem with the idea. It's easy to suggest something can or can't be true in regard to Adam in the garden, but there are a lot of holes in our knowledge of the circumstances that existed at that time. It seems to me we have to go pretty much by the record of Scripture on the matter, and I don't see your view matching Genesis at all.

"Righteousness is the sole property of Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot be mutable, thus "he that is born of God cannot sin" 1 Jo 3:9. Because Adam was not made in Christ (evidenced by his not having partaken of the tree of life which is Christ), he was not righteous; he was merely in a state of not knowing right from wrong."

I don't see that you have a case here, Collosions. As to your use of 1Jn 3:9, 1) see above as to righteousness--applied in a state of true information, or the initial perfection of creation--is only a signifier that means "true" or "perfect" and this word didn't entertain its dynamic sense till sin appeared, and, 2) the application of 1Jn 3:9 has its greatest expression in essence, NOT applied to particulars (to individuals). God's seed--what regeneration produces; the destruction of false information (evil) and the bringing forth of true data [life] in its place--suffers no setback when we understand that God's seed exists fragmentally in many individuals. There was no need of Adam to be kept from the tree of life--as a perfect being, he already possessed eternal life because eternality stands in natural relation to truth and perfection. Again, look at the Gen record: there was no need for God to keep Adam from the tree of life until after he sinned and stained himself with the disease of false information (Gen 3:22). I.e., he had lost the automatic privilege of eternality by virtue of introducing falsity into his perfection.

My two pesos.