Jump to content
Steve_S

Discussion on Predestination and Election

Recommended Posts

Just now, Butero said:

I know people are smarter than you give them credit for.  I doubt there are too many people on the eternal security side of this debate that will ever openly agree with me, but they aren't stupid.  Anyone with a single ounce of objectivity knows that you contradicted yourself, but if like the little engine that could, you still wish to continue this farce, I am ok with that.  I will continue to bring up these examples of your contradictions every time you claim I am misrepresenting you, and I am more than happy to let the readers decide if I am correct.  

As for the debate, I am happy to continue.  I will try to stop laughing and collect my thoughts and take up the issue of where sin came from.  Then I hope to deal with how much, if any, free will we really have.  Lord willing, I will give you an on topic post soon.  Have a nice day.  

I have not contradicted myself. I have explained myself quite well and explained why no contradiction exists, which is why you can't refute my explanation.   The one lacking objectivity is you because you are blinded by your emotionally immature and irrational need to "defeat" me, rather than debate the issue.   You can't win on facts, and truth so you have focus on deflecting from what you can't actually refute.    You have no contradictions to bring up, as I have been 100% consistent. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clearly recall a time where you said that you believed in the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, however, having gone back through much of your body of comments, it is clear to me that even if you did, it was not your actual belief.  You clearly hold to eternal security, not perseverance of the saints, so I am not going to continue to argue that point.  See, I will be honest about what you believe, even though it would have been easy to keep this going.  This doesn't change your comments about the way you interpret scripture.  I am not buying your excuse when it comes to that, because you were doing what you said shows you have no skill in handling the original languages.  I don't care how you try to spin it.  That is what you did.  

We also have a new problem.  I am going to take you at your word with regard to where your doctrine comes from.  You say it comes from the Arminian side, not Calvin.  Here is what you said.

Southern Baptists, traditionally, are Arminian not Calvinistic.  We differ with Arminian theology on the issue of losing salvation, but most of our doctrine comes from Arminianism that was held by the General Baptists. 

Instead of saying you are teaching a perversion of Calvin's doctrine, I am now going to say you are teaching a perversion of Arminian doctrine.  Not only that, but you and others on your side of the eternal security debate have been claiming that those who do not believe eternal security aren't really Christians.  If what you are saying is true, that means General Baptists, according to you and those like you were not Christians.  Is that misrepresenting you?  This would mean that anyone whose views are Arminian rather than from Calvin are not saved, because they are trusting in works, based on your view of works.  Is that misrepresenting your views?  I don't want anymore mix ups going forward.  

We have a couple of areas we need to still deal with.  We have covered them, but I am trying to find a way to gradually close things out, because if you have read the beginning of this debate, you have seen we are going around in circles for the most part, when we are not taking jabs at each other trying to show the other person doesn't know what they are talking about.  The first area is where sin came from.  I don't wish to misrepresent Shiloh's view at all on this.  If I am saying this wrong, please let me know.  Shiloh's view is that he doesn't know where sin came from.  That is it.  That really explains a lot doesn't it.  He doesn't know where it came from, yet he continues to say I am wrong.  To me, if you don't know the answer, it is pretty lame to say anyone is wrong.  Just my opinion.  He will try to claim he is basing his view I must be wrong on the character of God, which I will also have to address after I finish with this post, Lord willing of course.  

What was the first sin?  It was clearly Lucifer's rebellion against God.  This took place before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.  

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!  how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:  I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.  Isaiah 14:12-15  

There are two points we must consider, God's foreknowledge and the fact he is the creator of everything that exists.  Both me and Shiloh have acknowledged God has foreknowledge of all that will ever happen.  Where we disagree is over whether or not he created Lucifer to become Satan and his adversary in the future.  Lets look at this logically.  God creates Lucifer with complete knowledge that down the road, he will rebel against him.  God knows this before he makes this angel.  Romans refers to God as a potter and his creation as vessels fashioned by the potter.  

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel of honour, and another of dishonor?  Romans 9:21

Does not the potter have the power over his clay to make one angel, such as Michael or Gabriel of honour, and another like Lucifer and the angels that rebelled with him of dishonor?  Of course he does.  That is what he did.  He took one lump, knowing full well what each angel would do, and made them into who they became.  He knew everything Lucifer would ever do, so if he still went ahead and created him, he must have wanted him to be around and do the things he has done.  There must be a purpose for his existence as God's adversary, or God would not have made him, and if he wanted him gone now, he could have easily destroyed him, but he hasn't.  Ezekiel 28 describes the fall of Lucifer this way.  

Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:  the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:  thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.  Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.  Ezekiel 28:13-15

Shiloh likes to claim that Lucifer was perfect when he was created, meaning there was no iniquity on the inside or out, but the text doesn't say that.  The text simply says he was perfect in his ways.  All that means is he did what he was supposed to do.  He didn't rebel or violate the commandments of God until something happened.  Iniquity was found in him.  The iniquity had to be there from the start or it couldn't magically come into being down the road. 

Can the Ethiopian change is skin, or the leopard his spots?  then may we also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.  Jeremiah 13:23

That is especially true knowing God knew all Lucifer would do because he is all knowing and his creator.  Even Shiloh acknowledges that.  Shiloh also will tell you he has no idea where iniquity came from or how Lucifer was able to rebel.  Sin hadn't been committed as of yet.  Sin is the transgression of God's laws, and up until this time, Lucifer was perfect in his ways or behavior.  

The sin was created on the inside of Lucifer at the beginning or it would never have been found down the road.  Something that doesn't exist can't be discovered.  Whatever you are you are.  An event just has to bring it out.  Some believe that what led to iniquity coming out was the creation of man, and that Lucifer was unhappy about it.  Is that true?  I don't know, but it makes sense in light of what the Bible says about him being in Eden, the garden of God.  Of course, we know he was there in the form of a serpent, which is what led to the fall of man, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.  We know Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil, had sin on the inside of his heart from the start based on the following scripture.  

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.  For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him:  and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:  whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.  1 John 3:8-10

How did the devil sin from the beginning when he was perfect in his behavior?  He had sin in his heart from the beginning.  One of the reasons it takes grace to save us is we commit sins of the heart all the time without knowing it or meaning to.  We have unclean thoughts.  If not for grace, we wouldn't stand a chance.  The same thing applied to Lucifer.  He was created with iniquity on the inside, but it wasn't manifested immediately.  He led a rebellion among the angels, and the rest was history.  

Where did sin come from?  It came when God created Lucifer and did so with iniquity on the inside of his heart.  My belief is that God created an adversary to show his creation the difference between clean and unclean and darkness and light.  Just as God created Pharaoh to show his power to the world, he created Lucifer to show all of creation his power and how light is superior to darkness.  Once everything is over and done with, and the final uprising is put down at the end of the millennial reign of Christ, all will remember forever what it was like when darkness was in control.  

I expect a Shiloh to come against what I said using smoke and mirror tactics twisting Hebrew and Greek words and saying his superior knowledge of the original languages shows he knows what he is talking about.  Don't believe it.  This is a tactic false teachers use to try to claim they are right when they are desperate.  He will likely try to claim this is an assault on the character of God and makes no sense.  I gave you the reason why God would do it.  As to his character of God argument, I have already shown how God has used evil spirits, sicknesses, natural disasters, wars, famines, and even evil men to kill and destroy.  He also has used angels for the same purpose.  I can give more such examples, and that is what I plan to do if Shiloh goes in the direction I expect he will.  My hope is that once we put the argument over where sin came from in our rear view mirror, we can address the issue of free will.  I plan to show example after example of God telling everyone exactly what individuals will do before they do it, and example after example of God giving us a glimpse into future events that couldn't take place if free will was anything more than an illusion.  

Again, what is Shiloh's explanation for where sin came from?  He doesn't know.  

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clearly recall a time where you said that you believed in the doctrine of perseverance of the saints,

No, it is just in your imagination.  I have never argued for that belief system.

however, having gone back through much of your body of comments, it is clear to me that even if you did, it was not your actual belief.  You clearly hold to eternal security, not perseverance of the saints, so I am not going to continue to argue that point. 

Good idea.

 See, I will be honest about what you believe, even though it would have been easy to keep this going.  This doesn't change your comments about the way you interpret scripture.  I am not buying your excuse when it comes to that, because you were doing what you said shows you have no skill in handling the original languages.  I don't care how you try to spin it.  That is what you did.  

I was speaking to a particular way people pick and choose which definition suits them when the Strong’s concordance offers a multitude of definitions.   That was what I was addressing, and you have to ignore that, because it doesn’t fit the narrative you want to push.   You are not really to be trusted in a debate because you are willing to sacrifice honesty, and manly integrity in order to “defeat” me at any cost, even if it means trying misrepresent my words.

We also have a new problem.  I am going to take you at your word with regard to where your doctrine comes from.  You say it comes from the Arminian side, not Calvin.  Here is what you said.

Southern Baptists, traditionally, are Arminian not Calvinistic.  We differ with Arminian theology on the issue of losing salvation, but most of our doctrine comes from Arminianism that was held by the General Baptists. 

Instead of saying you are teaching a perversion of Calvin's doctrine, I am now going to say you are teaching a perversion of Arminian doctrine.  Not only that, but you and others on your side of the eternal security debate have been claiming that those who do not believe eternal security aren't really Christians.  If what you are saying is true, that means General Baptists, according to you and those like you were not Christians.  Is that misrepresenting you?  This would mean that anyone whose views are Arminian rather than from Calvin are not saved, because they are trusting in works, based on your view of works.  Is that misrepresenting your views?  I don't want anymore mix ups going forward.  

I am not teaching a perversion of Arminianism at all. We reject the Arminian view that salvation can be lost, that is all.  That is not perverting anything.   We simply adhere to the majority of the Arminian points, except one.   If we were perverting it, we would offer up an alternate Arminianism, which we don’t.

We have a couple of areas we need to still deal with.  We have covered them, but I am trying to find a way to gradually close things out, because if you have read the beginning of this debate, you have seen we are going around in circles for the most part, when we are not taking jabs at each other trying to show the other person doesn't know what they are talking about.  The first area is where sin came from.  I don't wish to misrepresent Shiloh's view at all on this.  If I am saying this wrong, please let me know.  Shiloh's view is that he doesn't know where sin came from.  That is it.  That really explains a lot doesn't it.  He doesn't know where it came from, yet he continues to say I am wrong.  To me, if you don't know the answer, it is pretty lame to say anyone is wrong.  Just my opinion.  He will try to claim he is basing his view I must be wrong on the character of God, which I will also have to address after I finish with this post, Lord willing of course.  

You don’t know where sin came from, either.  The Bible doesn’t tell us where sin comes from, only that it was first found in Lucifer.  What I DO know is that the Bible does NOT say that God created sin.  And so far you have not offered up ONE bit of Scripture that lays the blame for sin upon God, not a single one.

What was the first sin?  It was clearly Lucifer's rebellion against God.  This took place before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.  

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!  how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:  I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.  Isaiah 14:12-15  

There are two points we must consider, God's foreknowledge and the fact he is the creator of everything that exists.  Both me and Shiloh have acknowledged God has foreknowledge of all that will ever happen.  Where we disagree is over whether or not he created Lucifer to become Satan and his adversary in the future.  Lets look at this logically.  God creates Lucifer with complete knowledge that down the road, he will rebel against him.  God knows this before he makes this angel.  Romans refers to God as a potter and his creation as vessels fashioned by the potter.  

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel of honour, and another of dishonor?  Romans 9:21

Does not the potter have the power over his clay to make one angel, such as Michael or Gabriel of honour, and another like Lucifer and the angels that rebelled with him of dishonor?  Of course he does.  That is what he did.  He took one lump, knowing full well what each angel would do, and made them into who they became.  He knew everything Lucifer would ever do, so if he still went ahead and created him, he must have wanted him to be around and do the things he has done.  There must be a purpose for his existence as God's adversary, or God would not have made him, and if he wanted him gone now, he could have easily destroyed him, but he hasn't.  Ezekiel 28 describes the fall of Lucifer this way.  

If God wanted sin to exist, if God wanted man to rebel in the Garden, if God created Lucifer with sin, if God wanted Satan to tempt Eve, if God wanted there to be murder, rape, abortion, hate, oppression, child abuse, spousal abuse, adultery, homosexuality, lying robbery, using God’s Name in vain, worshiping idols, if God, as you claim wanted those things to exist in the first place (otherwise why are they here?  as you say) then why create an adversary?   

If we follow the path of logic that you are operating under, that everything we see is the will of God, including sin and crime, if God created all of that and wants it to exist, then how exactly is Satan going to be God’s adversary?    If everything God despises is also what He made and He wants man to be tempted by the Devil in the Garden, then how exactly was Satan the adversary?  Satan, would have been carrying out the will of God, not operating as God’s adversary.   Your theology has God and Satan as allies, not adversaries.    God wants man to be destroyed, according to you.  That is where your theology leads.   

Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:  the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:  thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.  Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.  Ezekiel 28:13-15

Shiloh likes to claim that Lucifer was perfect when he was created, meaning there was no iniquity on the inside or out, but the text doesn't say that. 

Yes it does.

The text simply says he was perfect in his ways. 

Case in point.

All that means is he did what he was supposed to do.  He didn't rebel or violate the commandments of God until something happened.  Iniquity was found in him.  The iniquity had to be there from the start or it couldn't magically come into being down the road. 

That is YOUR assumption which you cannot back up from Scripture.

Can the Ethiopian change is skin, or the leopard his spots?  then may we also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.  Jeremiah 13:23

That is especially true knowing God knew all Lucifer would do because he is all knowing and his creator.  Even Shiloh acknowledges that.  Shiloh also will tell you he has no idea where iniquity came from or how Lucifer was able to rebel.  Sin hadn't been committed as of yet.  Sin is the transgression of God's laws, and up until this time, Lucifer was perfect in his ways or behavior.  

But foreknowledge doesn’t mean that God foreordained what He foreknew.   Just because I know something will happen in the future, doesn’t mean that I want it to happen or that I cause it to happen.   Just because God knows what will happen, it doesn’t mean He caused it to happen.

The sin was created on the inside of Lucifer at the beginning or it would never have been found down the road. 

Where does the Bible say that sin was created??   Present that verse. Sin is not a created thing. 

Something that doesn't exist can't be discovered.  Whatever you are you are.  An event just has to bring it out.  Some believe that what led to iniquity coming out was the creation of man, and that Lucifer was unhappy about it.  Is that true?  I don't know, but it makes sense in light of what the Bible says about him being in Eden, the garden of God.  Of course, we know he was there in the form of a serpent, which is what led to the fall of man, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.  We know Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil, had sin on the inside of his heart from the start based on the following scripture.  

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.  For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him:  and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:  whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.  1 John 3:8-10

How did the devil sin from the beginning when he was perfect in his behavior?  He had sin in his heart from the beginning.  One of the reasons it takes grace to save us is we commit sins of the heart all the time without knowing it or meaning to.  We have unclean thoughts.  If not for grace, we wouldn't stand a chance.  The same thing applied to Lucifer.  He was created with iniquity on the inside, but it wasn't manifested immediately.  He led a rebellion among the angels, and the rest was history.  

Where did sin come from?  It came when God created Lucifer and did so with iniquity on the inside of his heart.  My belief is that God created an adversary to show his creation the difference between clean and unclean and darkness and light.  Just as God created Pharaoh to show his power to the world, he created Lucifer to show all of creation his power and how light is superior to darkness.  Once everything is over and done with, and the final uprising is put down at the end of the millennial reign of Christ, all will remember forever what it was like when darkness was in control.  

I expect a Shiloh to come against what I said using smoke and mirror tactics twisting Hebrew and Greek words and saying his superior knowledge of the original languages shows he knows what he is talking about.  Don't believe it.  This is a tactic false teachers use to try to claim they are right when they are desperate.  He will likely try to claim this is an assault on the character of God and makes no sense.  I gave you the reason why God would do it. 

You gave your opinion regarding why you think God would do it.   You offer nothing in terms of a real scriptural platform because you don’t have one. 

As to his character of God argument, I have already shown how God has used evil spirits, sicknesses, natural disasters, wars, famines, and even evil men to kill and destroy.  He also has used angels for the same purpose.  I can give more such examples, and that is what I plan to do if Shiloh goes in the direction I expect he will.  My hope is that once we put the argument over where sin came from in our rear view mirror, we can address the issue of free will.  I plan to show example after example of God telling everyone exactly what individuals will do before they do it, and example after example of God giving us a glimpse into future events that couldn't take place if free will was anything more than an illusion.  

You have given examples of God using evils spirits.  I never contested that.   But what you never were able to produce were any verses where God devised sin and sent someone else out to carry out God’s sinful will.

Again, what is Shiloh's explanation for where sin came from?  He doesn't know.  

And neither do you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one thing you failed to answer Shiloh, in that last post, and I feel it would be helpful and instructive to know.  Those Arminian believers, like General Baptists that don't believe in unconditional eternal security, are any of them saved and Christian?  I will await your reply on that before continuing.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Butero said:

There is one thing you failed to answer Shiloh, in that last post, and I feel it would be helpful and instructive to know.  Those Arminian believers, like General Baptists that don't believe in unconditional eternal security, are any of them saved and Christian?  I will await your reply on that before continuing.

Anyone, General Baptist, or otherwise who believes that they are saved through any degree of personal merit, or personal effort, if they believe that works are necessary for salvation, then they are trusting in a false gospel and there is no salvation in a false gospel.  Salvation is Jesus +0.  We are justified by faith alone, in Christ alone.  And we are kept saved by Christ alone.  We are not saved because we are good, but because God is good.  

Southern Baptists spring from General Baptists, but we believe in eternal security and that while a person maintains freedom of choice, no truly saved Christian ever turns from the Lord or chooses to live in rebellion against God.   Salvation is a transformation of the heart, and as such, true Christians are a changed people, a new creation that has a heart to serve God.  They may stumble at times, but they will never fall away.

 

  • This is Worthy 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 11:45 AM, shiloh357 said:

I have given you data points, not opinions.  I have given explanations.   Your response is to brush off everything has opinions and that is not refutation.  Your response to everything is, "I reject your opinions."   That is not refutation and is not debate.

There are a lot of terms we use that are not "biblical" in that the Bible has Hebrew or Greek exact equivalent for some of our modern terms.  That doesn't mean that the term contradicts the Bible or violates in doctrine in it. 

You won't find the word, "grandfather" in the Bible.  The original languages have no word for "grandfather."  But we know there were grandfathers in the Bible.  

"Trinity" is not a biblical term, but is a biblical concept. 

The term, "rapture" is not a biblical term, but is a biblical concept.  

We refer to the blessings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as the Beatitudes.  That word is not found in Scripture, but it is a biblical concept. 

In theology we refer to all kinds of things by terms that you won't find in the Bible like prevenient grace, human depravity, etc.   So simply claiming that something is unbiblical just because the exact term is not found in the Bible is a weak argument. 

 

In my previous post, I made the argument that God created iniquity in Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil.  I showed how he in actuality had sin from the beginning of his existence, but he was able to hide his true character for a time, till he acted upon it and led a rebellion.  He appeared perfect until the iniquity was discovered.  My position is that in this way, God created the devil to be his adversary to show a contrast between good and evil, as well as to show his power as he did with Pharaoh.  I used scripture to defend what I said and show that unlike Shiloh, I know where sin came from.  

Shiloh will claim that this is only my opinion, but I want to point out something Shiloh said about me when I would demand proof from him in absolute terms.  I may not have a verse of scripture that says God created sin in Lucifer, but I do have scripture saying God created him, and another saying the devil sinned from the beginning.  I have scripture showing God's foreknowledge with the added bonus God is the creator of all that exists.  We know God could destroy the devil anytime he wants to but doesn't.  We know the devil must come to God to seek permission to tempt certain individuals and must meet with God at appointed times, according to Job.  I have a lot of scriptural reasons for believing as I do.   There is far more evidence in scripture to back me up than there is for a lot of doctrines Shiloh holds to, such as the rapture of the church and the trinity.  Don't get me wrong.  I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture and the doctrine of the trinity, but I have more actual scripture to support my arguments for where sin came from and predestination and election than there is for the rapture and the trinity, yet Shiloh holds to both as true.  He tends to like to move the goal post around during debates.  He uses one standard for him, and another for everyone else.  

Shiloh said that I simply brush off everything he says and call it opinions, and he defends opinions he holds to based on far less evidence than I am presenting to make my case on the origin of sin and predestination and election.  What is my view of where sin came from?  That God created iniquity in Lucifer, but it was hidden for a time.  He was perfect in his outward behavior till the iniquity was discovered, but he had sin in his heart from the beginning, which is why 1 John goes so far as to say the devil sinneth from the beginning.  What is Shiloh's view of where sin came from?  He has no idea.  He said I don't know either, but that is a lie.  I am telling you again where sin came from.  God created iniquity in the heart of Lucifer.  That is where sin originated.  

Another Shiloh position that is not found in the Bible is the idea that the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a problem for man to eat, and the only reason it harmed Adam and Eve was because they disobeyed God.  He went so far as to throw out a silly theory that down the road, had they gone long enough without disobeying God, the Lord would have likely given them permission to eat of that fruit.  That is based on nothing, yet Shiloh puts that nonsense out there and expects people to believe it based on the opinion of phantom scholars.  He never bothered to give any names or reasons for their beliefs from the Bible.  

I will give Shiloh a chance to spin what I just said before I move on to my next point dealing with God not only having foreknowledge, but setting in motion everything that is going to happen till the end of time as we know it.  My position and Shiloh's should be clear as to the origin of sin by now, so I see no reason to return to it until we give closing arguments.  

MY VIEW:  God created iniquity in the heart of Lucifer when he created Lucifer, but it wasn't discovered immediately.

SHILOH's VIEW:  He has no idea where sin came from.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In my previous post, I made the argument that God created iniquity in Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil.  I showed how he in actuality had sin from the beginning of his existence, but he was able to hide his true character for a time, till he acted upon it and led a rebellion.

No, you didn’t really “show” anything.   You just made an argument,  but didn’t provide any real data that directly supports your assertion.   Sin is not a created thing.  The Bible never states that sin was ‘created.’   That is just a conjecture on your part.

 He appeared perfect until the iniquity was discovered.  My position is that in this way, God created the devil to be his adversary to show a contrast between good and evil, as well as to show his power as he did with Pharaoh.  I used scripture to defend what I said and show that unlike Shiloh, I know where sin came from.

The Scripture you posted doesn’t actually say what you are saying.  The Bible doesn’t say that God created Satan for the purpose of being His adversary to show a contrast between good and evil.   That is something you made up.   Secondly, the Bible doesn’t say that God created Pharaoh for the purpose of enslaving Israel.  You are making a lot of assertions that you want to mold the Bible around, but you have not provided any Scripture that actually says what you are saying.   You have done a poor job at defending your core arguments with Scripture.  

Shiloh will claim that this is only my opinion, but I want to point out something Shiloh said about me when I would demand proof from him in absolute terms.  I may not have a verse of scripture that says God created sin in Lucifer, but I do have scripture saying God created him, and another saying the devil sinned from the beginning.  I have scripture showing God's foreknowledge with the added bonus God is the creator of all that exists.  We know God could destroy the devil anytime he wants to but doesn't.  We know the devil must come to God to seek permission to tempt certain individuals and must meet with God at appointed times, according to Job.  I have a lot of scriptural reasons for believing as I do.  

All you are doing is drawing inferences.  You assume that since God allows Satan to exist, He must want Satan to do things that he does.   You assume that since that since God create Satan knowing what Satan would do, that it means God wants sin to exist.   You assume foreknowledge equals fore-ordination.   You are drawing a lot of assumptions that you have never found one passage in Scripture that actually says what you are saying. 

There is far more evidence in scripture to back me up than there is for a lot of doctrines Shiloh holds to, such as the rapture of the church and the trinity.  Don't get me wrong.  I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture and the doctrine of the trinity, but I have more actual scripture to support my arguments for where sin came from and predestination and election than there is for the rapture and the trinity, yet Shiloh holds to both as true.  He tends to like to move the goal post around during debates.  He uses one standard for him, and another for everyone else. 

Your comparing two dissimilar things.   The Trinity isn’t explained in a treatise by Paul or anyone else in the Bible, but the Trinity can be demonstrated.  The word “Trinity” is Latin, so I would not expect that word to appear in the Greek New Testament or in the Hebrew Old Testament.   But the Trinity is in operation and demonstrably so.    

The problem is that you don’t even have a demonstration of your teachings in the Bible.  The Bible presents us with a God who hates sin, not a God who creates it.   We are presented with a God who commands us not to sin, not a God who “scripts” sin into our world, not a God who engineered the Fall of man, as you claim.   Your position presents us with a God wants abortions to happen because He “scripted” it that way.   Your position presents us with a God who wants 13-year-old girls to be raped because He “scripted” it that way.   Your position presents us with a God who wants parents to find out that their 16-year-old son was hit by a drunk driver because He “scripted” it that way.   Your position presents us with the idea that some aborted babies will go to Hell because God only chose some to go to Heaven and the rest were created to go to Hell, because He “scripted” it that way.  Those are things you cannot demonstrate.    You cannot demonstrate that God created sin, that the Bible shows us God creating sin, claiming He created sin, or anything at all that even remotely resembles my evidence for the Trinity.   You simply have nothing.  It's time to face up to that.

Shiloh said that I simply brush off everything he says and call it opinions, and he defends opinions he holds to based on far less evidence than I am presenting to make my case on the origin of sin and predestination and election. 

That’s because I don’t need to present evidence for my case at this point.   This whole debate has been about YOUR “evidence” and your erroneous claims about God. 

What is my view of where sin came from?  That God created iniquity in Lucifer, but it was hidden for a time.  He was perfect in his outward behavior till the iniquity was discovered, but he had sin in his heart from the beginning, which is why 1 John goes so far as to say the devil sinneth from the beginning.  What is Shiloh's view of where sin came from?  He has no idea.  He said I don't know either, but that is a lie.  I am telling you again where sin came from.  God created iniquity in the heart of Lucifer.  That is where sin originated. 

But again, that is just your assumption and not biblical truth.  That is YOUR view, but that is where it stops.   You have nothing to offer but your view. 

Another Shiloh position that is not found in the Bible is the idea that the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a problem for man to eat, and the only reason it harmed Adam and Eve was because they disobeyed God.  He went so far as to throw out a silly theory that down the road, had they gone long enough without disobeying God, the Lord would have likely given them permission to eat of that fruit.  That is based on nothing, yet Shiloh puts that nonsense out there and expects people to believe it based on the opinion of phantom scholars.  He never bothered to give any names or reasons for their beliefs from the Bible. 

But the difference is that I made sure that it was understood that It was my opinion.  I never offered it up as doctrine or infallible truth, the way you present your unfounded claims.  You don’t have to agree with me, and that’s fine.   But the fact is that I was honest enough to couch my remarks as opinion and not fact.  You offered nothing to convince me that my opinion is wrong.

I will give Shiloh a chance to spin what I just said before I move on to my next point dealing with God not only having foreknowledge, but setting in motion everything that is going to happen till the end of time as we know it.  My position and Shiloh's should be clear as to the origin of sin by now, so I see no reason to return to it until we give closing arguments.  MY VIEW:  God created iniquity in the heart of Lucifer when he created Lucifer, but it wasn't discovered immediately. SHILOH's VIEW:  He has no idea where sin came from. 

My view is more biblically honest as I follow the axiom that it is wiser to be silent where the Bible is silent.   Sin is not a created thing.  It is a perversion of the good things God has made.  God’s nature is such that He would never have created sin (if it could have been created).  God is too holy to make sin part of His creation.

Edited by shiloh357
  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 1:47 PM, shiloh357 said:

In my previous post, I made the argument that God created iniquity in Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil.  I showed how he in actuality had sin from the beginning of his existence, but he was able to hide his true character for a time, till he acted upon it and led a rebellion.

No, you didn’t really “show” anything.   You just made an argument,  but didn’t provide any real data that directly supports your assertion.   Sin is not a created thing.  The Bible never states that sin was ‘created.’   That is just a conjecture on your part.

BUTERO'S REPLY:  I did show that iniquity existed in Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil from the beginning.  This is more than opinion.  That is thus saith the Lord.  1 John 3:8  "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.  For this purpose the Son of God was mainifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."  The devil's origin was as Lucifer, and all the Bible says is he was perfect in all of his ways, or behavior.  Those two points together back up my position that iniquity was always in the heart of Lucifer, though it wasn't seen until it was discovered.  

 He appeared perfect until the iniquity was discovered.  My position is that in this way, God created the devil to be his adversary to show a contrast between good and evil, as well as to show his power as he did with Pharaoh.  I used scripture to defend what I said and show that unlike Shiloh, I know where sin came from.

The Scripture you posted doesn’t actually say what you are saying.  The Bible doesn’t say that God created Satan for the purpose of being His adversary to show a contrast between good and evil.   That is something you made up.   Secondly, the Bible doesn’t say that God created Pharaoh for the purpose of enslaving Israel.  You are making a lot of assertions that you want to mold the Bible around, but you have not provided any Scripture that actually says what you are saying.   You have done a poor job at defending your core arguments with Scripture.  

BUTERO's REPLY:  While the scriptures do not come out and say that the devil was created to be God's adversary and show a contrast between good and evil, and to show God's power, that is the only explanation that makes any sense, given what the scriptures say about the devil.  There is no other reason for God to keep the devil around.  Right now, if you were asked to give a reasonable explanation why God would created the devil knowing how he would turn out, and allow him to continue to do things that violate God's standard of holiness, what would your answer be?  Would it be the same answer you gave about the origins of sin, that you simply don't know?  

God is a holy God right, that cannot look upon sin.  Wouldn't you say that the devil is about as evil as you can get?  He has absolutely no redeeming qualities.  He comes to steal, kill and destroy, all sinful behavior, yet this evil, sinful being has to present himself before God at appointed times.  He has to get permission to tempt people, and has limits on how far he can go, but he isn't outright forbidden to do anything.  Why?  Lets look at Job for a moment.  He didn't need testing, when God knew the outcome before the testing occurred.  Who was this for?  It had to be for his creation to see.  God asks the devil if he has considered his servant Job, and the devil makes excuses for why Job serves God.  God knew those things the devil said were lies, yet he let the devil destroy him.  The devil lied (sinned) right in the very presence of God, yet a God that it is said cannot look upon sin tolerated it, and gave audience to it.  Why?  Because the devil is but a pawn.  What would you likely say to what I just said?  The Bible doesn't say the devil is a pawn and you don't know why God created him and lets him continue.  

Shiloh will claim that this is only my opinion, but I want to point out something Shiloh said about me when I would demand proof from him in absolute terms.  I may not have a verse of scripture that says God created sin in Lucifer, but I do have scripture saying God created him, and another saying the devil sinned from the beginning.  I have scripture showing God's foreknowledge with the added bonus God is the creator of all that exists.  We know God could destroy the devil anytime he wants to but doesn't.  We know the devil must come to God to seek permission to tempt certain individuals and must meet with God at appointed times, according to Job.  I have a lot of scriptural reasons for believing as I do.  

All you are doing is drawing inferences.  You assume that since God allows Satan to exist, He must want Satan to do things that he does.   You assume that since that since God create Satan knowing what Satan would do, that it means God wants sin to exist.   You assume foreknowledge equals fore-ordination.   You are drawing a lot of assumptions that you have never found one passage in Scripture that actually says what you are saying. 

BUTERO's REPLY:  I am doing this based on an awful lot of evidence.  Lets say you had a person on trial for theft.  There are no witnesses to the actual crime, but people saw him purchase a gun.  They saw him wearing a mask outside the bank.  He had been on-line looking up stories about successful bank robberies.  He was seen in the vicinity of the bank that was robbed when the crime was committed.  He didn't have money in the past, but suddenly has lots of it.  We are making assumptions to say he committed the crime, but the evidence points to the fact he did it.  There is an awful lot of evidence to back up what I am saying.  At the same time, nobody arguing against my positions can come up with a different reason for why God created the devil and tolerates him.  

There is far more evidence in scripture to back me up than there is for a lot of doctrines Shiloh holds to, such as the rapture of the church and the trinity.  Don't get me wrong.  I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture and the doctrine of the trinity, but I have more actual scripture to support my arguments for where sin came from and predestination and election than there is for the rapture and the trinity, yet Shiloh holds to both as true.  He tends to like to move the goal post around during debates.  He uses one standard for him, and another for everyone else. 

Your comparing two dissimilar things.   The Trinity isn’t explained in a treatise by Paul or anyone else in the Bible, but the Trinity can be demonstrated.  The word “Trinity” is Latin, so I would not expect that word to appear in the Greek New Testament or in the Hebrew Old Testament.   But the Trinity is in operation and demonstrably so.    

The problem is that you don’t even have a demonstration of your teachings in the Bible.  The Bible presents us with a God who hates sin, not a God who creates it.   We are presented with a God who commands us not to sin, not a God who “scripts” sin into our world, not a God who engineered the Fall of man, as you claim.   Your position presents us with a God wants abortions to happen because He “scripted” it that way.   Your position presents us with a God who wants 13-year-old girls to be raped because He “scripted” it that way.   Your position presents us with a God who wants parents to find out that their 16-year-old son was hit by a drunk driver because He “scripted” it that way.   Your position presents us with the idea that some aborted babies will go to Hell because God only chose some to go to Heaven and the rest were created to go to Hell, because He “scripted” it that way.  Those are things you cannot demonstrate.    You cannot demonstrate that God created sin, that the Bible shows us God creating sin, claiming He created sin, or anything at all that even remotely resembles my evidence for the Trinity.   You simply have nothing.  It's time to face up to that.

BUTERO'S REPLY:  Yes and no.  God does hate sin, but he uses it.  Look again at the story of Job.  The devil was before the throne of God lying to him about Job.  God knew everything the devil said were lies, so he clearly tolerated sin in front of him  Based on something God knew was  lie, he let the devil kill all of Job's family and destroy everything he had.  You are over here talking about a drunk driver, abortions, and other bad things, but God knew what the devil would do to Job's family (real people, every bit as real as unborn babies), and gave permission.  What is your reason, to test Job?  What about his grown children?   Don't their lives matter as much as an unborn child?  

How about when David authorized a census be done out of pride, and rather than punish David, God sent an angel out to kill innocent people?  God ordered that done.  That wasn't a case of just allowing it.  God sent the slayer out to kill people because of a sin David committed.  Looking at stories like that, I hardly see how anyone can make the case that God would never create people to do evil.  He can look upon sin, the devil lied in front of God's throne and comes into his presence.  He orders bad things to be done to people, even when they didn't actually do anything to deserve it.  In addition to all of that, the Lord told an evil spirit to lie through prophets to King Ahab about the outcome of a battle so he would be killed.  

I would also again point out other things you are willing to concede are true.  You believe Mother Theresa is likely in hell even though she gave up everything to do good works all her life.  Under your beliefs, a man could be an abortion clinic doctor all his life, killing untold numbers of innocent little children week in and week out, and get saved on his death bed and go to heaven, while people that worked to end abortions all their life would go to hell because they trusted in their own good works to make it to heaven.  It is hard for me to see how that is any worse than saying God created some people to commit sins to show a contrast between good and evil.  The nice Catholic lady I used to protest with at abortion clinics, who lived a decent and moral life would go to hell while serial killers can have a death bed conversion and spend eternity in heaven, and you won't deny that.  

Shiloh said that I simply brush off everything he says and call it opinions, and he defends opinions he holds to based on far less evidence than I am presenting to make my case on the origin of sin and predestination and election. 

That’s because I don’t need to present evidence for my case at this point.   This whole debate has been about YOUR “evidence” and your erroneous claims about God. 

What is my view of where sin came from?  That God created iniquity in Lucifer, but it was hidden for a time.  He was perfect in his outward behavior till the iniquity was discovered, but he had sin in his heart from the beginning, which is why 1 John goes so far as to say the devil sinneth from the beginning.  What is Shiloh's view of where sin came from?  He has no idea.  He said I don't know either, but that is a lie.  I am telling you again where sin came from.  God created iniquity in the heart of Lucifer.  That is where sin originated. 

But again, that is just your assumption and not biblical truth.  That is YOUR view, but that is where it stops.   You have nothing to offer but your view. 

BUTERO'S REPLY:  Your answer to everything is that you don't know.  

Another Shiloh position that is not found in the Bible is the idea that the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a problem for man to eat, and the only reason it harmed Adam and Eve was because they disobeyed God.  He went so far as to throw out a silly theory that down the road, had they gone long enough without disobeying God, the Lord would have likely given them permission to eat of that fruit.  That is based on nothing, yet Shiloh puts that nonsense out there and expects people to believe it based on the opinion of phantom scholars.  He never bothered to give any names or reasons for their beliefs from the Bible. 

But the difference is that I made sure that it was understood that It was my opinion.  I never offered it up as doctrine or infallible truth, the way you present your unfounded claims.  You don’t have to agree with me, and that’s fine.   But the fact is that I was honest enough to couch my remarks as opinion and not fact.  You offered nothing to convince me that my opinion is wrong.

BUTERO'S REPLY:  But you are pushing something that is just your opinion.  You are saying the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was only harmful because God told them not to partake of it.  You aren't calling that an opinion.  You are teaching that as fact, based on nothing.  Until you started peddling that, I had never heard anyone make that ridiculous claim.  

I will give Shiloh a chance to spin what I just said before I move on to my next point dealing with God not only having foreknowledge, but setting in motion everything that is going to happen till the end of time as we know it.  My position and Shiloh's should be clear as to the origin of sin by now, so I see no reason to return to it until we give closing arguments.  MY VIEW:  God created iniquity in the heart of Lucifer when he created Lucifer, but it wasn't discovered immediately. SHILOH's VIEW:  He has no idea where sin came from. 

My view is more biblically honest as I follow the axiom that it is wiser to be silent where the Bible is silent.   Sin is not a created thing.  It is a perversion of the good things God has made.  God’s nature is such that He would never have created sin (if it could have been created).  God is too holy to make sin part of His creation.

BUTERO'S REPLY:  Here is something else you said you cannot prove.  It is just opinion.  When you claim sin is not a created thing, that is just your opinion.  There is no basis in fact for saying that.  It just goes along with your theology, so you repeat it over and over with nothing to show you are right.  To say God is too holy to make sin part of his creation is also an opinion with no basis in fact.  Sin is part of our world.  It had to get here someway.  I don't hear you saying God is too holy to allow sin to remain in his creation, because you can't.  Are you going to claim God is too holy to allow it in his presence, though he allowed the devil to lie about Job to his face and to present himself to God continually?  Based on the things that we read about in the Bible, there is no other explanation that makes any sense but that God created sin within Lucifer, and has a purpose for allowing it to continue.  He has to want it to remain, or it would be eradicated in an instant.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUTERO'S REPLY:  I did show that iniquity existed in Lucifer aka Satan aka the Devil from the beginning.  This is more than opinion.  That is thus saith the Lord.  1 John 3:8  "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.  For this purpose the Son of God was mainifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."  The devil's origin was as Lucifer, and all the Bible says is he was perfect in all of his ways, or behavior.  Those two points together back up my position that iniquity was always in the heart of Lucifer, though it wasn't seen until it was discovered.  

No, what I mean is that you have not provided any evidence that sin was created and that it was created in Lucifer or Adam, for that matter.   Those are claims for which you have provided no biblical support.   You kind of dance around the problem by claiming that saying that since Lucifer was created, and sin/iniquity was found in Him, that it means the sin/iniquity was put there by God and you assert that as proven.   It is proven to YOU, but you have not proven it objectively.   You have provided no evidence to support that particular claim about the origin of sin.

BUTERO's REPLY:  While the scriptures do not come out and say that the devil was created to be God's adversary and show a contrast between good and evil, and to show God's power, that is the only explanation that makes any sense, given what the scriptures say about the devil.  There is no other reason for God to keep the devil around.  Right now, if you were asked to give a reasonable explanation why God would created the devil knowing how he would turn out, and allow him to continue to do things that violate God's standard of holiness, what would your answer be?  Would it be the same answer you gave about the origins of sin, that you simply don't know?  

You would not let me get away with a that kind of response.  You would demand that I produce biblical proof of that claim.  The Bible does not say that Satan was created for the express purpose of being God’s adversary and it does not say that God needed Satan to show us the difference between good and evil. 

That explanation is contradicted by your argument that sin and evil exist because God wants sin and evil to exist in the world that God ordains for men to be sinful.   The purpose for any demonstration of a contrast between good and evil would be to show us what evil is in order that we would avoid it.   But your view has God forcing men to sin, forcing people to do the very things He commands them not to do.  That is simply not biblical. 

God is a holy God right, that cannot look upon sin.  Wouldn't you say that the devil is about as evil as you can get?  

Your presentation of a God who wants man to commit evil isn’t really any better than how evil the devil is.  In fact, your approach to God makes Him an ally to Satan, not an adversary.

He has absolutely no redeeming qualities.  He comes to steal, kill and destroy, all sinful behavior, yet this evil, sinful being has to present himself before God at appointed times.  He has to get permission to tempt people, and has limits on how far he can go, but he isn't outright forbidden to do anything.  Why?  Lets look at Job for a moment.  He didn't need testing, when God knew the outcome before the testing occurred.  Who was this for?  It had to be for his creation to see.  God asks the devil if he has considered his servant Job, and the devil makes excuses for why Job serves God.  God knew those things the devil said were lies, yet he let the devil destroy him.  The devil lied (sinned) right in the very presence of God, yet a God that it is said cannot look upon sin tolerated it, and gave audience to it.  Why?  Because the devil is but a pawn.  What would you likely say to what I just said?  The Bible doesn't say the devil is a pawn and you don't know why God created him and lets him continue.   

I know why God created Lucifer.  He creates everything for His glory.  He created Lucifer for the purpose gaining glory from Him.   That’s why we are on this earth.    What I said was that I don’t know where sin originally came from.  All we know from the biblical data is that sin was first found in Lucifer when he lifted himself up pride.  I also said that sin is not “created.”  The Bible never says that sin was created.  It say it was found.   Nowhere in the Bible is their any data to support the notion that God engineered sin into creation.   And the Bible never says that Satan is a pawn, either.  If Satan is a pawn, that makes everything thing that happens, be it the highest good or the most heinous sin, the fault of God. 

BUTERO's REPLY:  I am doing this based on an awful lot of evidence.  Lets say you had a person on trial for theft.  There are no witnesses to the actual crime, but people saw him purchase a gun.  They saw him wearing a mask outside the bank.  He had been on-line looking up stories about successful bank robberies.  He was seen in the vicinity of the bank that was robbed when the crime was committed.  He didn't have money in the past, but suddenly has lots of it.  We are making assumptions to say he committed the crime, but the evidence points to the fact he did it.  There is an awful lot of evidence to back up what I am saying.  At the same time, nobody arguing against my positions can come up with a different reason for why God created the devil and tolerates him.   

No, there is no evidence backing up your specific claims.   And this is not like a forensic crime scene or a trial based on circumstantial evidence.   You are making specific claims that you assert are proven fact.   You are going beyond what the Bible actually says and are assigning values to the text that are simply not there.

BUTERO'S REPLY:  Yes and no.  God does hate sin, but he uses it.  Look again at the story of Job.  The devil was before the throne of God lying to him about Job.  God knew everything the devil said were lies, so he clearly tolerated sin in front of him  Based on something God knew was  lie, he let the devil kill all of Job's family and destroy everything he had.  You are over here talking about a drunk driver, abortions, and other bad things, but God knew what the devil would do to Job's family (real people, every bit as real as unborn babies), and gave permission.  What is your reason, to test Job?  What about his grown children?   Don't their lives matter as much as an unborn child?  

The issue here is not about whether or not God uses sin.  WE are talking about your assertion that God creates sin and ordains people to commit sin.  That goes far, far beyond the claim that God merely uses sin.   Your claim is that God intended and engineered the fall of man.   That makes God the author of sin, which have not denied.   So your presentation is one of God wanting sin to exist, and creating people to commit sin so that He can destroy them.   Your view has God wanting people to die in Hell, wanting babies to be aborted, wanting children to be sex trafficked, beaten, abused, molested, raped and murdered.   That’s the God YOU present.   You present a God who loves sin and wants people to die in sin.

It is a massive contradiction to what the Bible says about God and that is really the genesis of this debate.

How about when David authorized a census be done out of pride, and rather than punish David, God sent an angel out to kill innocent people?  God ordered that done.  That wasn't a case of just allowing it.  God sent the slayer out to kill people because of a sin David committed. 

But that wasn’t God committing sin or asking someone else to commit sin on His behalf (which would still be a sin on God’s part to do that).    You make God out to be a sinner, really. 

Looking at stories like that, I hardly see how anyone can make the case that God would never create people to do evil.  He can look upon sin, the devil lied in front of God's throne and comes into his presence.  He orders bad things to be done to people, even when they didn't actually do anything to deserve it.  In addition to all of that, the Lord told an evil spirit to lie through prophets to King Ahab about the outcome of a battle so he would be killed.   

You have God creating people to do evil, the very evil God commands people not to do.   According to you, it is all “scripted” and everyone has no choice but to do what God has already predetermined they will do.  That is not what the Bible says. 

If God is creating people to go out and commit sin, what purpose does Satan serve?  Why would God need an adversary if God has already scripted what Satan will do?   What resist temptation if it is already scripted that we will commit the sin we are “scripted” commit??    Your entire presentation of God violates not only His revealed redemptive nature, not only contradicts the Bible’s revelation of God’s holiness, but really makes the entire plan of salvation meaningless.

I would also again point out other things you are willing to concede are true.  You believe Mother Theresa is likely in hell even though she gave up everything to do good works all her life.  Under your beliefs, a man could be an abortion clinic doctor all his life, killing untold numbers of innocent little children week in and week out, and get saved on his death bed and go to heaven, while people that worked to end abortions all their life would go to hell because they trusted in their own good works to make it to heaven. 

Well, Jesus saved a man on the cross who spent his life as a criminal and got saved just before death.    Jesus will save anyone who puts their faith in Him.   Those who are putting their faith  in being good and thinking that the good works of opposing abortion will earn them a spot in Heaven are trusting in the wrong thing.

 It is hard for me to see how that is any worse than saying God created some people to commit sins to show a contrast between good and evil.  The nice Catholic lady I used to protest with at abortion clinics, who lived a decent and moral life would go to hell while serial killers can have a death bed conversion and spend eternity in heaven, and you won't deny that.  

It is not anything like saying that God created some people to commit sins to show the difference between good and evil.  There is no point of comparison, whatsoever.   I am not making God the determiner of who goes to Heaven or Hell.  I am saying that those who choose to obey the Gospel will be saved.  So, there is no similarity between me saying that it is our decision to believe or reject the Lord and your claim that God creates people to go to Hell with no choice in the matter.

BUTERO'S REPLY:  Your answer to everything is that you don't know.  

No, that is not my answer to everything.  But I have the humility to know that the Bible doesn’t answer every question and there is missing information that God has chosen, at this time, to withhold from us.  I understand that and I don’t try to fill in the blanks the way you try to do.   You don’t really know where sin came from, but you have decided that you can answer the question with your opinion and then hold It up as proven fact.    

BUTERO'S REPLY:  But you are pushing something that is just your opinion.  You are saying the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was only harmful because God told them not to partake of it.  You aren't calling that an opinion.  You are teaching that as fact, based on nothing.  Until you started peddling that, I had never heard anyone make that ridiculous claim.  

I am not “pushing” anything.  I simply gave what I said was my opinion.  And I was happy to leave it as that.   I don’t have to submit to your view on that matter.   I am not demanding anyone accept my view on that matter.  The ONLY person here who is pushing this issue is you.  I am not and did not say it was biblical fact.   You assign that value/motive to me in order to have something debate.   You can believe what you want about that.   I will continue to believe what I believe on the matter. 

BUTERO'S REPLY:  Here is something else you said you cannot prove.  It is just opinion.  When you claim sin is not a created thing, that is just your opinion.  There is no basis in fact for saying that.  It just goes along with your theology, so you repeat it over and over with nothing to show you are right.  To say God is too holy to make sin part of his creation is also an opinion with no basis in fact.  Sin is part of our world.  It had to get here someway.  I don't hear you saying God is too holy to allow sin to remain in his creation, because you can't.  Are you going to claim God is too holy to allow it in his presence, though he allowed the devil to lie about Job to his face and to present himself to God continually?  Based on the things that we read about in the Bible, there is no other explanation that makes any sense but that God created sin within Lucifer, and has a purpose for allowing it to 10-

Sin is in our world, but that does not mean sin was created. Sin is here and it was “found” first in Lucifer.  That’s all the Bible says about its origin in that regard.  That is not my opinion.  That is just biblical fact.   The one with the burden of proof is the one claiming that God created sin.

God would not engineer or author sin because God is holy and hates sin.   God does allow sin to exist, but we also know that sin has a expiration date.   There will come a time when God will finally eradicate it from creation.  

God has already judged sin.   He judged our sin in the Person of Jesus Christ and Jesus paid the penalty for sins as they were nailed to His cross.  He bore our sins in his body and death penalty for sin has been fully satisfied.   That is just first phase of the judgment of sin. 

If God wants sin in the world, if He engineered it, why would man have needed to fall in the first place?  Why not just create Adam and Eve to be fully depraved creatures who were already how man is described in Romans 3:9-20?   And if God has value in sin, why eradicate it in the New Heavens and New Earth?

Why send Jesus to redeem us from the very sin that God wants us to commit?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×