| Author | Message | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 110 Registered: 7-2011  |
Why did God create Lucifer if He knew he'd be evil? Ultimately, I dunno. Nobody knows. Not even the Pope. Over the centuries philosophers and theologians have almost ‘done their heads in’ trying to figure it out. Some say the existence of evil disproves an all-loving omniscient God. But for others this creates more questions than it answers. So why did God create Lucifer? [Enter Kelleigh, Armchair Expert]. Let’s answer the question with another question: If God only created beings that He foreknew would be good, would that be compatible with free will? Scenario A: “God creates agents that He foreknows will be good” Scenario B: “God creates agents with free will” A and B are incompatable - they cannot coexist. OK, but what about, Scenario C: “God creates agents that He foreknows will be evil” Scenario B: “God creates agents with free will” C and B are also incompatable! Mmm. Do these arguments necessarily disprove B? Free will can be a slippery concept (says a woman who can't figure the buttons on a TV remote control Lol!) “Free will is the capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives”. OK, here’s my answer to ‘life the universe and everything’ (and it’s not 42…but probably something like it! I.e, Are the right questions being asked?) (it satisfies my dimwitted mind anyway), • God creates rational agents with the capacity to choose. [Full stop. Draw the line]. That’s free will. • God deals with the consequences of His creatures free will. That’s love. • His creatures live with the consequences of their free will. That’s wisdom. Then of course, we could simply believe the Bible and leave philosophy to those who like to rest their chin on their knuckles and think. I'm finished now. If you made it this far you deserve a cup of tea..(or maybe you need a panadol). He he! | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7440 Registered: 9-2006  |
Quote: I do not smoke. But if I did. A typical addiction and sin. Ok, I gotta maybe rant a little here? Why do these religions always zero in on the smoker as a despicable sinner? Why does the smoker always get the blunt end of the stick? And I’m not just talking about Adventist neither, the smoker is the first one to get tromped on, they make the poor smoker feel like he’s gotta hide his cigarettes before he can walk in a church! This is much apparent in the Pentecostal churches…well…it makes a Pentecostal want to become a Baptist, I swear I’ve about had it up to here! “I don’t smoke and I don’t chew, and I don’t go with the girls that do.” I mean these poor guys get saved and they are just so miserable they can’t enjoy their new life in Christ until they suffer through over coming the habit and if they can’t they still suffer. I mean the affect of cigarettes is nothing to the being banned by their fellow Christians or made to feel like the lowest scum on the earth. I mean they get up in church and holler how saintly they are compared to that smoker who snuck and in to get a little religion…yeah… that turkey over in the corner with his head hung low….yeah…the one who had to eat a whole box of breath mints before he even felt like he might be able to open the church door! I mean the guy is so hungry for Christ he’ll brave the rejection just to get his head in a church door. I mean I get so tired of some of this churchy stuff I could scream! I mean gimme a break! Ok…I’m done, I said it. I been wanting to say that for so long I can’t remember when I first wanted to say it. Now I’ll sit over here and feel bad about what I just said If that is ok with you all. River | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1222 Registered: 5-2007 |
River, The question was not to set myself up as being better, though I can see where even saying that 'I do not smoke' was defensive and offensive in of itself. Take it for granted that I have an array of sins and defects I have not overcome. The question remains however. How do we contrast the plain warnings about sin still in our lives with the idea that our sins are covered? I do not want to list the passages here. Most of us know them. I find myself repeatedly insecure and self condemned because of sin, fear itself, lack of faith born of confusion and struggle. I try to hold onto to safe havens in Christ, yet see my own failings daily and wonder if my fate is to wander in darkness. Add in the never ending confusion about the 10C. On our left hand we say the OT did not divide the law. On our right, we allow division in teh 10 and say 9 are moral and 1 is cermonial. That double standard throws me back into doubt. In the SDA faith, we are taught to overcome, to get all sin out of our lives and, the righteousness of Christ is the safety net that protects us while we grow in grace. But if we fail to make steady progress or fall back, we imperil our souls. It is this construct that I do see in scripture that leads me into insecurity. The war to self improve never ends. The peace of Christ is not possible if I am living by grace while under threat and never knowing when I am doing enough or have fallen one time too many and God is done with me. Even the idea of being disciplined by God is a nightmare. In 2 Thes 2 it talks about lawlessness. About strong delusion. These things bother me quite a bit. It says we perish because we refused to love the truth. But does not spell out what the truth is. Though in context the topic of lawlessness and truth seem to be contrasted. Lawlessness - Delusion - Truth | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1223 Registered: 5-2007 |
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. J: That we believe He is the son of God? Or is their more here contained in believing in Him? 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. J: This is a key, but what is behind this door? What is the scope of not condemned? 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. J: Christ is the way, but what is the way? 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. J: What is the light? Truth? What is truth? 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. J: Light - Truth Both concepts that are like grasping at vapour. Born of the Spirit........ John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7441 Registered: 9-2006 |
That was not aimed at you brother, it was aimed at the infernal religions that ruined you. Quote: 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. J: This is a key, but what is behind this door? What is the scope of not condemned? What is behind the door is that we can now, even though not perfect, can go in and out and find pasture. Read what Paul said,Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Romans 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Romans 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. So the smokers body smokes, but it is no longer he that smokes, but the sin that dwells in the mortal body. Let me tell you something brother, if after having received Jesus as your savior, then you no longer have the right to condemn yourself if God does not condemn you. One old boy said he got so humble he was proud of being so humble?  Who shall deliver us from this body of death? Thank God it ain't the hypocritical religions I depend on, it's Jesus! May God give you peace today. River | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1224 Registered: 5-2007 |
Hi River, Romans 7 is a chapter that has given me hope many times. I am waiting on two study books to arrive, one on Romans , the other on Galatians. I have spent most of my study time in Paul's writings. I have asked many questions in this string and none of them are rhetorical. I need these answers. I am trying to understand the transition and the MERGE between the covenants. I suspect that some things are a greater revealation that brings continuity from the OT to the NT, but also that some things ENDED. These things are hard to divide. | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 111 Registered: 7-2011 |
Colleen, That makes sense. I wasn't aware of the (many) other moral laws outside the 10 Commandments. One law makes sense now, especially when I read the NT. I'm going to study this out a little more. River, I have a friend who smokes (historic adventist) and will not go to church because he does not think he is worthy. He's waiting until he gives up smoking before returning to fellowship. In the meantime he stays home and reads the writings of Ellen White. It's really sad. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12839 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jim, Jesus IS the Way. Jesus IS the Light. Jesus IS Truth. Believing in Him is believing and embracing the gospel as described in 1 Cor 15:1-3: Jesus died according to Scripture, was buried, and was raised on the third day according to Scripture. Believing this cannot be separated from recognizing our own depravity, our inability to overcome sin or to please and obey God. We are utterly incapable of these things. When we go belly-up before the Lord Jesus and admit our helplessness and accept His completely DONE payment for all our sin, we are saved. Period. There is no more to do. God works on us to trust Him at deeper and deeper levels after that, but we do not lose salvation when we have gone belly-up and admitted that we are LOST and need a Savior. We are not separating the law by saying 9 are moral and one is ceremonial. In fact, I do not separate the 9 and the 1 that way at all. Moral absolutes are structured into creation. They did not come to mankind by way of law. Adam had morality built into him. Romans 2 says some Gentiles who do not have the law still keep the principles of the law. That is because morality is part of Creation, like sound and the magnetic spectrum. It's part of God's "fingerprint" on creation. God gave the law listing moral principles because men had suppressed the knowledge of God with their wickedness (Rom. 1). God didn't introduce morality with the Law, nor did He teach morality with the law. He gave the law with those lists of moral behaviors in order to make Israel see they were hopeless and dreadful sinners. The law was never given to help them live moral lives. It was given to remind them of the things they had squelched that had been hard-wired into them from creation: a knowledge of God and a knowledge of moral living. The law was given to remind Israel that they were condemned objects of wrath. The fourth commandment was not an eternal moral principle hard-wired into Adam. It was a shadow of God's finished work, His "ceasing", His rest from creation on the seventh day into which Adam and Eve had been created. Mankind had completely submerged the knowledge that God was their all-in-all and they could trust Him and rest in Him. The law was given to awaken guilt and shame and repentance. It was not given to make them holy. The law doesn't tell us how to be good. It shows us how we're NOT good. Being holy means honoring and trusting God. People can live "moral" lives without trusting and knowing God...and when they do the "right things" without trusting God, they are dangerous. Only when we are in submission to God, trusting His word and letting go of our eternal, infernal need to "get it right" and just trust Him to do in us what needs to be done, responding when He convicts us, then we honor Him. None of us ever lives really "moral" lives because we have sinful flesh. When we are born again God credits us with Jesus. Everything Jesus is, God writes in our ledger, and He cancels all our moral debt...even if we continue to commit sins. But if we are born again, God's Spirit never leaves us, and we live in the undeserved reality of being credited with the actual life and person and righteousness of Jesus. We are hidden in Him. The law can't touch us. We no longer need it to remind us of our sin, because Jesus has covered it and hidden us in Him. The law continues to list moral behaviors, but that's all it is. An impersonal list, like someone's will or trust papers. Those papers no longer mean anything once the instructions in them have been carried out and the assets distributed. They are done and obsolete. Just like the law. Colleen | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2025 Registered: 7-2007 |
Hi Jim; I just got done watching a movie where someone claimed to be a Christian and who refused to lend someone some desperately needed money, though they could've very easily afforded it. They totally twisted something the apostle Paul said, and told the person that they wouldn't lend to someone who was able-bodied. The person asking was already working as hard as they could - they weren't slacking at all. That's what you're getting confused over, I think. Let me explain... The apostle James said that if someone who claims to be a Christian is refusing to help a person going hungry, etc. when they are able to; perhaps they need to re-examine whether or not they are a Christian. The reason for that, is that there are people who assent intellectually to the fact that Jesus died for their sins, but they haven't accepted Him as Savior and Lord. As River and Colleen pointed out, Christians still sin, though they have been saved. Otherwise the Bible wouldn't say that Christians have been saved (Ephesians 2:8-10); and have eternal life (1st John 5:11-13.) I read a testimony of a man who, when he learned that Jesus had died for his sins, he was relived. It didn't occur that he had to do anything about it. Later he did realize that he needed to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Here's the testimony: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380590/posts Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, Jim. I know that because of our background in a legalistic religion, we are often tempted to think that because we haven't overcome this or that, we haven't been saved or that we've lost our salvation. I know I get tempted to think the same sometimes. There are so many verses that tell us that we're SECURE in Jesus after we are saved. And I think the Lord's been dealing with me on this too. Recently I was reading Romans 5 and was struck with the first verse: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1 Yes, I know, I know; SDAs excuse and explain away those clear verses that say a believer HAS BEEN SAVED. They think that they cannot believe the Bible when it's clear and twist it when it isn't clear. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2026 Registered: 7-2007 |
...And, a second thing Jim; we can know that we are saved because of the Holy Spirit being in us. Notice these verses: Ephesians 1:13-14 says that when a person believes in Jesus, he or she is sealed with the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 says that if someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit, they don't belong to God. Romans 8:16 says that the Holy Spirit lets a person know that he/she is God's child. 1st John 3:24 and 4:13 says: "By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit." | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2027 Registered: 7-2007 |
...And for the third thing; I'd like to mention the Sabbath. Notice Colossians 2:16-17... "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." When you look at this honestly, what do you see? You see all three groupings of Sabbaths - the annual/seasonal, the monthly Sabbaths and the weekly Sabbaths. (Notice also that the passage mentions food and drink!) SDAs ignore this whole passage, because it doesn't agree with Ellen White. (When I was an Adventist, I would jump over this passage or read quickly through it - assuming that Ellen White "explained" it.) Notice that ALL these Sabbaths are a SHADOW of Christ. Also Jim; Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law or the prophets 'till all was fulfilled. The "law and the prophets" are ALL 613 commands given to Israel! Notice what Galatians 5:3 says about someone doing something to try to stay/keep saved - in this case circumcism. It says that if a person does this, it makes them a"debtor to keep the whole law." It goes on in the next verse to say such people have "become estranged from Christ." It's the same thing with the Sabbath shadow. | ||
| Redeemed Registered user Username: Redeemed Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2009 |
I have been lurking for quite a while, but feel that this is a good place to jump in. All the years that I was raised SDA, I heard "remember" the sabbath - that it was still in effect because it was written on stone and because it had the word "remember in it." While reading the new testament recently, I read the text 1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: [24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. I could be totally wrong, but it is possible that he was trying to tell his disciples that He was the something new to "remember" that would soon replace the fourth commandment. He is the Sabbath. Jim02, I don't know if this is a possible transition between the covenants for you, but I have been praying that you will be able to find the rest in Him that others have. | ||
| Mkfound Registered user Username: Mkfound Post Number: 127 Registered: 1-2011 |
Redeemed, I also heard that we 'remember' the sabbath because it was already there from the beginning. However, I began to mull over the word 'remember' in my mind. I don't think that the word is only in reference to what has been said before. For example, 'Remember to bring your first aid kit' 'Remember to turn your clocks back in the fall.' 'Remember to wipe your hands on the napkin' I don't think that one could categorically say that in all of these cases the word 'remember' is alluding to something that has been stated before... | ||
| Mkfound Registered user Username: Mkfound Post Number: 128 Registered: 1-2011 |
By the way Redeemed, I was not negating your point. I was just adding to what you were saying with what I have come to conclusions to about how the word 'remember' is used. I think we might have been educated wrongly in terms of its usage there in Exodus. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12846 Registered: 12-2003 |
Redeemed, welcome to the forum!! It's good to have you here! And YES, you are absolutely right. The old covenant was based on the model of ancient Hittite covenants in the near East. The Mosaic covenant has the same "form" as the covenants that governed contemporary nations where one king won a battle and became the ruler over the other kings' people. The two kings would make an agreement in a similar form as the Mosaic covenant, at at the center of the covenant terms, there was always a sign that the conquered people would do, pledging to keep covenant with their new monarch by means of whatever sign the kings agreed to put there. The Mosaic covenant also had a sign of the covenant at the center. In this case God was making the agreement with Israel and Himself...and Israel would show loyalty to God's covenant with them by remembering to keep the Sabbath. Jesus introduced the new covenant the night before His death. He used the symbols of the OC--the Passover bread and wine--and transformed them. He gave them a new sign of remembrance: the Lord's Supper. And think what the Lord's Supper signifies: the marriage supper of the Lamb! The Sabbath for Israel foreshadowed the Lord Jesus Himself and His rescue of His people from sin. The Lord' Supper foreshadows Jesus' personal promise never to drink the juice of the grape again until He drinks it new in the Father's kingdom. Jesus gave them a new act of remembrance, a celebration and affirmation of the new covenant: drinking the symbols that represented His body and blood AND which looks forward to His promised return...a return when He will forever be with them/us! You are absolutely right: we have a new sign of remembrance. And it's not the "thing" itself we're supposed to remember. It wasn't the hours of the seventh day that are sacred. It's Jesus who is sacred. He's the one the day foreshadowed, and He's the one both remembered AND foreshadowed by the Lord's Supper. Dale Ratzlaff also teaches this new "remember" when he teaches the new covenant. Colleen | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2561 Registered: 5-2007  |
Welcome Redeemed, And, thanks for your insight into what for us formers is an old topic. Fearless Phil | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 9373 Registered: 3-2004  |
Welcome Redeemed, it is good to have you here. Diana | ||
| Thegoldenway Registered user Username: Thegoldenway Post Number: 73 Registered: 5-2011 |
Redeemed, good to have you on board! It's a great place to be lynn | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 534 Registered: 5-2009  |
Redeemed, Welcome! I agree with you that we now have a new Covenant to remember. But I wanted to point out that what struck me when reading the book of Exodus in large chuncks vs. bits and pieces was that Remember refered back to Exodus 16 when he first told them about Sabbath. | ||
| Redeemed Registered user Username: Redeemed Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2009 |
Thank you all for your kind welcome and comments. I have become quite familiar with each of you by your posts. I have been especially impressed that Jim02 has been struggling with the sabbath issue. I can understand that dilemma. I was born and raised in Battle Creek. My parents were each multi-generational adventists. I was baptized and married in the BC Tabernacle - can't get much more mired in the denomination than that. We still have family on each side that are as devout as we were. Thank God we have found the True Sabbath and rest for our souls. We now feel safe and secure in the arms of Jesus. |
