Even if you could find an errant church that believed everything you believe, it doesn’t change anything regarding established Church doctrine. The denomination of Primitive Baptists don’t teach that God that God created sin and that is the point I am making. There are no interpretative systems in Christianity that make that point. Being in the minority isn’t the issue I raised in and of itself. The issue I raised is that you have nothing, no denomination, no doctrinal backing, no system of theology and above all, no direct references from Scripture that claim God to be the author of sin. Your entire platform is based on nothing but your own personal slant and inferences.
LOL, Oh, I have a point. I have made a very big point. The problem is that you can’t refute it. You can reject it, but you can’t defeat it. And so far you have done everything you can to write it off, to belittle the point, and reject it, but you have not and cannot offer up any substantive refutation because it works off of your premises, and you cannot refute without doing violence to your own premise. The argumentation you provided works thusly:
God created all things.
Thus God created sin/iniquity because God created all things
God created Lucifer with iniquity already within him
God created Adam and Eve with iniquity already with them
Thus, the Fall of man was God’s plan; He fully intended, purposed and planned the fall of man in the Garden.
That is the line of argumentation you have been putting forth consistently in this debate. Gen. 1:31 says that God looked at all He had made and called it “very good.” “Very good” in Hebrew is “tov-meod,” and it carries the connotation of perfection, absolute perfection, as good as it gets. That is what God said AFTER He is finished creating. And if we take your line of argumentation as true, we have God calling sin/iniquity good. He is pleased with sin and iniquity, very pleased with it, if we take an internally consistent approach to your argument.
So the problem we have here, is that God is, for all intents and purposes, calling sin/iniquity “perfect.” That is the obvious problem for your argument; it’s the problem that you are doing your best to deflect away from and not address because you cannot defend it and you and I both know it.
But the Bible doesn’t say that. That is something you are adding in. How can something be perfect only in appearance, but not in reality? Why would God be pleased with something that only appeared good on the surface, but not in reality? Jesus condemned the Pharisees for appearing good on the surface, but not being actually good. He said they were white washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones. He condemned them for cleaning the outside of the cup, but leaving the inside of the cup unclean. He used those metaphors to condemn outward righteousness as a means to hide inward unrighteousness. In the Bible God takes a very dim view of those who only try to appear holy and righteous outwardly while continually living in sin. We, naturally, are turned off by people who appear to care about others, while at the same time are driven by selfish, impure motives. So the claim that creation only appeared perfect, doesn’t really square with God’s character or with the teachings of Jesus. So a Christian cannot accept that God creates the appearance of perfect, and then lies by calling something perfect when it is not really perfect. God would be untrustworthy. That would also cast doubt on the sinless perfection of Jesus. Was Jesus perfect only in appearance? If so, Jesus would be unfit to be our sin offering.
Well if that is the case, if Adam and Eve were created as sinners with a sin nature and sin already present within them, the next question I would ask is what did they fall from? In Christian doctrine, sin entered the world when Adam disobeyed God, but if Adam was already sinful before he ate of the fruit, then Rom. 5:12-21 doesn’t really make any sense. Sin was already present in the world and in Adam before he disobeyed.
If Adam was already sinful, then there was no "fall." In established Christian doctrine, going back to apostolic times, it has always been the case that we believe that Adam became a sinner when he disobeyed God, and not before. God did not create Adam with sin already present with him.
I am not sure what method you are talking about that I used and later discredited. Can you enlighten me and provide an example of me using a method and later discrediting it?
No, what this reveals is that you still don’t understand the concept of “context.” Hebrew is a very small language. It has about 8700 words. Compare that with over 300,000 words in English. Despite that, Hebrew is very precise and very nuanced at the same time. Because Hebrew has a small pool of words, many of those words play double, triple, quadruple duty. One word in Hebrew can be used 10, 15 even 20 different ways depending on how many contexts it is found in. So when you have two different contexts, the same word can mean two different things. This is also true to some degree for Koine Greek in the New Testament. You have to pay attention to contextual usage.
In Hebrew, the word tam means “perfect” or “perfection.” But, tahimim is the plural of tam. It doesn’t translate as “perfections” as it is not a numerical plural. It is what we call a plural of intensity. It actually means “entire” or “whole.” So the usage of word in reference to Lucifer means that He was wholly perfect in all His ways, there was no imperfection in him. Now you have been trying to assert that “in his ways” mean that he was only perfect in action, but not inwardly, but the word “ways” in Hebrew is derekh and it can refer to a physical path or a road. However, when used in Ezek. 28:13 to refer to Lucifer it is only re-enforcing the word tahmim. When we say that someone is good or perfect in everything they do, we intuitively refer to their inward character. We naturally understand that good behavior stems from a good inward character. You are trying to deny what is intuitive normal every day thinking and you are trying hard to deny that the Bible says exactly it what it says. “Ways” or derekh is used in a spiritual context to refer to inward moral direction that under girds or prompts one to have good moral behavior. There is no way around it. Lucifer was wholly perfect in every part of his being.
Now how does that relate to how the same word is used with Noah? Well it is used differently because it doesn’t say that Noah was perfect in all his ways. The same word is used differently with Noah and the context is totally different. Noah was a sinner, an unregenerate sinner just like those who lived around him, but Noah is described as a just (righteous) man and a man who is “perfect in his generation.” In Hebrew, it is tahmim hayah b'dorotaiv. Here the word “perfect” is meant to be understood as “upright.” It doesn’t mean flawless perfection. That would not fit the context. What it is saying is that Noah was just and was upright in his setting in life.
No, it makes the point that you don’t understand how Hebrew works. It is not as simple as pulling out Strong’s or Vine’s. It means that language has a level of complexity that you are complete unaware of because you have no training in how to handle the biblical languages and you completely misunderstand the concept of context and its effects on word usage. Simply using a dictionary isn’t a substitute for knowing how to handle the language. Strong’s only provides you with the root words and then gives an exhaustive list of different meanings/usages. It has no analytical capability and was never meant to be stand-alone reference for Greek and Hebrew and the way it is set up, assumes some prior education in those languages. I am not an expert, but I am far more competent in Hebrew than someone who has to rely on Strong’s and has no concept of context or any other aspect of biblical hermeneutics.
When I say I have graduate level training in Hebrew, it means I have studied on a Master's degree level. I don't have a degree Hebrew. No one gets a degree in Hebrew. You might get a doctorate or master's in biblical languages, but that is a useless degree unless you plan on being a seminary professor.
No, that is not what it is telling us. It does not say that God created anyone for eternal life or damnation. That is not even in keeping with the context or the line of thought Paul is developing in this chapter. This is not a treatise on personal salvation. Romans 9, 10 and 11 are God’s defense of His sovereign right to use Israel’s rejection of Jesus as a means of blessing the Gentiles. Jacob and Esau represent two nations, according to the Lord in Gen. 25: 22-23 (Paul is quoting from that passage in Rom. 9: 12. So everything Paul is saying about Jacob and Esau must be seen from a corporate, national perspective. Jacob represents the Jewish people and Esau represents the Gentile nations from a covenantal stand point. This is not about individual salvation at all. This section (9, 10 and 11) comprises an appeal to the Gentiles, who have benefited from God’s partial hardening of corporate Israel, to bring the Gospel back to the Jewish nation.
The problem is that “hated” in reference to Jacob and Esau is not speaking to personal contempt. “Loved and hated” are being expressed in covenantal terms. It’s something our western culture has no point of reference for. We think of hate only in terms of contempt. But that is not the case when God is looking at two nations with regard to a covenant relationship. Jacob was no better than his brother. But God sovereignly chose His covenant to be through Jacob in spite of Jacob’s poor character. From a corporate covenantal perspective, God, for reasons known only to Him, preferred Jacob over Esau. It doesn’t mean that Esau was outside the purview of redemption. It doesn’t mean that God created Esau to destroy him.
God’s choice of Jacob over Esau has nothing to do with salvation. God’s choice of Jacob had to do with service, not salvation. Personal salvation from sin is not part of Paul’s line of thought. So to make this about God choosing who will be saved in Romans 9, reflects poor hermeneutics and a complete abandonment of simple, literary context.