Did God Cause the Fall?

[Drew]

. Oh well, I know that you need your tradition in Ephesians 2 to support you justification by works theory of Romans

Another of your many misrepresentations of my position.

 

[Drew]

The biggest lie that ever was told in human language is that all men are born free moral agents. They are not born free. Be honest! Ask, Is that child free who is born in the slums; the child of a harlot and a whoremonger; a child without a name, who grows up with the brand of shame upon his brow from the beginning; who grows up amidst vice, and never knows virtue until it is steeped in vice? Is such a child a FREE MORAL AGENT, free to act intelligently, as he chooses, upon all moral questions...?

I certainly agree that the constraints on any "freedom" we might have are indeed large. But to be limited in freedom is not the same thing as not possessing it at all. The concept of "free will" is a meaningful concept - we attribute it to God, so it has to be an attribute that humans could, repeat could, possess.

 

[follower of Christ]

. Oh well, I know that you need your tradition in Ephesians 2 to support you justification by works theory of Romans

Another of your many misrepresentations of my position.

Misrepresentation seems to be the tactic here by some.

 

[Drew]

They are AS FREE as GOD has created them to be...ie they CAN make the choice to sin, as ADAM and his wife CHOSE do commit.

Hello FoC: You know that I see things the same you do on a number of areas. But on this matter, I think, we will part company. I believe that human beings are born with an "inherited" nature that drives them irresistably to commit sin. This does not mean that I deny that humans have a measure of free will - there is no conceptual incoherence in believing both in an irresistable urge to sin and in possessing a measure of free will.

 

[mondar]

I suspect you create these straw men because you cannot do actual exegesis

Why do you do continue to do this?

Drew, Go back and read your statement on what others believe the word phusis (nature) means. I challenged you to show someone, or anyone who used the definition you said was wrong. Did you? Or did you simply ignore the complain and then call my complaint "rhetoric?" You could have wrecked my complaint by simply quoting the source of your definition. It did not actually exist though, did it? The definition that you said was wrong you simply made it up. Would it not be honest to admit that it was a straw man and that you made the definition up?

Do you really think that serious readers will dismiss my arguments simply because you resort to such rhetoric?

Was my "Rhetoric" that bad? I guess I did scold you for using a straw man argument, but it seems to me that it was a fair scolding.
You are right, I have previous complained that you are not doing exegesis. The only point of exegesis you did was to not that the word "nature" was used in both the Galatians context and the Ephesians context. That was exegetically correct. But that was exegetical error to draw the conclusions you did. First, you did not demonstrate the semantic range of the word "nature." Then you also read something from one context into a different context. Do you understand what I am saying here or am I loosing you?
Do you remember I provided about 1/2 dozen contexts in which the word phusis (nature) was used elsewhere? To do exegesis you should have been working with all those contexts, and even more. I then quoted from a Lexicon... or an authoritative source. You should have been doign that to establish the meaning of a word. I am using at least some small exegetical tools. I have never seen you use anything like that.
Drew, do you understand the concepts of semantic range? Do you know what a lexicon is (I know that is a simplistic question--it is not meant to insult). Drew, do you know what I mean by exegetical tools?

And it is strange that you would attempt such a strategy, given how past discussions between us have panned out (e.g the discussion about the nature of the term "gospel" where it became clear that the exegetical weight lay behind the position for which I was advocating).

Yeah, I think I waist my time writing these things. I am still wondering what the profit is. I dont think you have ability to understand some of the things I talk about. When I ask about exegetical tools above, I am guessing you will be silent. Without any sign that you can use exegetical tools, I will find it very unconvincing that you would pass correct judgment on "the exegetical weight" of some issue.

I plan to address your argument in detail - let the reader determine the quality of the arguments without "rhetorical" promptings.

Well, I must commend you for being one of the more restrained writers. I think you blow a lot of air around, but you do it in a very restrained way. I hope when you address my "arguments in detail" that you will be using some exegetical tools to persuade me of my errors. Also, please dont use any more straw man definitions that no one ever suggested.

Drew, so you think I have too many "Rhetorical promptings?" Well, I guess I will have to work on toning it down. We are all passionate about what we believe, and I do not wish to insult. Neither would I wish you to stop the conversation because I am a jerk not worth talking to. But lets make this discussion one of exegesis, using Lexicons, going to the grammar, showing structural and rhetorical devices used in the passage, etc. I will await your next post.

 

[mondar]

. Oh well, I know that you need your tradition in Ephesians 2 to support you justification by works theory of Romans

Another of your many misrepresentations of my position.

Drew, do you or do you not believe that justification has three tenses, past-present-and future.... and that future justification is based upon works?

 

[follower of Christ]

They are AS FREE as GOD has created them to be...ie they CAN make the choice to sin, as ADAM and his wife CHOSE do commit.

Hello FoC: You know that I see things the same you do on a number of areas. But on this matter, I think, we will part company. I believe that human beings are born with an "inherited" nature that drives them irresistably to commit sin. This does not mean that I deny that humans have a measure of free will - there is no conceptual incoherence in believing both in an irresistable urge to sin and in possessing a measure of free will.

I believe that we have freedom to choose within the parameters God has given us to decide.
Adam had the freedom to choose to do right or wrong..to eat or not to eat.
Clearly Adam and Eve were both 'tempted' but whether they FELT temptation to disobey does not mean that they could not have obeyed by simply doing what God said...abstaining from that one tree.

Im not a Calvinist, btw...nor do I subscribe to a lot of what the man taught.

 

[follower of Christ]

. Oh well, I know that you need your tradition in Ephesians 2 to support you justification by works theory of Romans

Another of your many misrepresentations of my position.

Drew, do you or do you not believe that justification has three tenses, past-present-and future.... and that future justification is based upon works?

Wow...getting that far in instead of just looking at the CONTEXT of the whole to see if God has behaved in such a way with man that would show that MAN is the cause of his own failure by his choice to run into sin rather than GOD being responsible for it ?

 

[Drew]

Drew, Go back and read your statement on what others believe the word phusis (nature) means. I challenged you to show someone, or anyone who used the definition you said was wrong. Did you? Or did you simply ignore the complain and then call my complaint "rhetoric?"
You could have wrecked my complaint by simply quoting the source of your definition. It did not actually exist though, did it? The definition that you said was wrong you simply made it up. Would it not be honest to admit that it was a straw man and that you made the definition up?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I provided examples of Bible versions which translated the word "phusis" as "by birth".

Your implication here that I am making things up is, frankly, outrageous, and, of course, without merit. When will your shameless behaviour end?

 

[Drew]

Would it not be honest to admit that it was a straw man and that you made the definition up?

Moderators?

Mondar, you repeatedly engage in subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) misrepresentation, falsehood, and innuendo. I am willing to engage in a serious discussion, are you?

 

[Sparkey]

I did an exegesis once: Biting words hurt.

Sheep don't like it. A call to the moderators may have been made.
My call to The Vindicator Himself has been made.

< Look at us Lord. Weigh us rightly in the scales of Justice and Mercy that we might know your thoughts>

 

[Drew]

First, you did not demonstrate the semantic range of the word "nature."

I really had no such obligation. Nothing I ever posted suggested that the word "nature" could not mean what you think it means, either in the Ephesians context, or in other contexts. I was merely arguing that the term "by nature" in and of itself could refer to the circumstances of one's birth, as in "I am a Canadian by nature", without entailing any specific commitment to some kind of unalterable internal property.

Then you also read something from one context into a different context. Do you understand what I am saying here or am I loosing you?

My argument was entirely legitimate. By demonstrating that the phrase "by nature" is used elsewhere by Paul as "by birth" shows that he can and does use the word that way. I am pretty sure that I never wrote anything that a reasonable person would take as an argument of the form: "since the phrase means 'by birth' in Galatians 2, it must mean the same thing in Ephesians 2". Instead, I was making a plausibility argument - that the the Ephesians 2 text could be read that way. Now I know that you have made some arguments as to why we should read the Eph 2 text the way that you do. I have not addressed those arguments yet.

Do you remember I provided about 1/2 dozen contexts in which the word phusis (nature) was used elsewhere? To do exegesis you should have been working with all those contexts, and even more. I then quoted from a Lexicon... or an authoritative source. You should have been doign that to establish the meaning of a word. I am using at least some small exegetical tools. I have never seen you use anything like that.

My arguments were sound - I showed how, in Romans 2, the term was used with a "by birth" meaning. And perhaps more to your point, I showed how that in the Galatians 2 context, Bible translators - not just little old me - have translated the term as "by birth". Again, don't you dare accuse me of arguing that "since it means 'by birth' in Galatians 2, it must mean 'by birth' in Ephesians 2. I never said anything like that.

Drew, do you understand the concepts of semantic range? Do you know what a lexicon is (I know that is a simplistic question--it is not meant to insult). Drew, do you know what I mean by exegetical tools?

I politely suggest that given how other discussions between us have turned out, you are hardly in a position to lecture me on the matter of solid exegesis. I am familiar with the concept of semantic range and have not violated the concept in any sense.

 

[Drew]

. Oh well, I know that you need your tradition in Ephesians 2 to support you justification by works theory of Romans

Another of your many misrepresentations of my position.

Drew, do you or do you not believe that justification has three tenses, past-present-and future.... and that future justification is based upon works?

Yes. And if you had posted that, then you would have not been misrepresenting.

But that is not what you posted. What you posted was deeply misleading.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, I think I waist my time writing these things. I am still wondering what the profit is. I dont think you have ability to understand some of the things I talk about.

If people want insight into the way mondar and I actually make our cases and conduct exegesis, this thread might prove most illuminating:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=33755&p=401529&hilit=romans+9+study#p401529

 

[Benoni]

follower of Christ,

Man does not have what it takes to cause something as big as the fall of all of humanity, there is no way little man could of done something this big without God's total blessing Why do you think man is so all powerfull, especially sense you seem to go out of your way to spin or deny so many valid scriptures. I have a lot more too, but I know you will spin or deny their content because you do not belive in God's Word; you believe in your own opinion.

 

[Bubba]

Romans11:36, "For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen."
Scripture seems to support that God orchestrated the Fall, just like He orchestrated the crucificion of His Son, using evil men like clay in a Potter's hand, Romans 9 again, not just Jews but Gentiles too (verse 24).
Bubba

 

[Drew]

Romans11:36, "For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen."
Scripture seems to support that God orchestrated the Fall, just like He orchestrated the crucificion of His Son, using evil men like clay in a Potter's hand, Romans 9 again, not just Jews but Gentiles too (verse 24).
Bubba

Hello Bubba:

It may surprise you and others to know that while I am inclined to think that God did not "pre-destine" the fall, maybe He did - I am kind of on the fence on this. But I do not see how Romans 9 supports an argument that "Gentiles too" were "vessels of evil in the potter's hands".

I think that it is clear from the whole structure of Paul's argument that the vessels of destruction in Romans 9 are Jews and Jews only.

 

[Bubba]

Romans 9:20-24 “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?â€Â

Drew,
What I wrote was not clear; what I am trying to say is that the Potter (God) makes both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. I believe the context of the above verses is that those the Lord chooses as vessels of mercy are both Jews and Gentiles (vs. 24). If this is so, than the passage is not predominantly about the Nation of Israel, but whom God has compassion and mercy upon. Yet, if one must insist that this is about ethnic Jews only, it is still a matter of God’s sovereignty who will be His, for all are not spiritual Jewish descendants of Abraham seed.
Bubba

 

[Drew]

Romans 9:20-24 “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?â€Â

Precisely - the Gentiles are vessels of glory, not destruction. I see no legitimate argument here that any Gentile is a vessel of destruction - you have to read that in.

What I wrote was not clear; what I am trying to say is that the Potter (God) makes both vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy.

I think you are making an individualistic reading here. That's ok as long as you are willing to have Paul saying that only Jews are vessels of destruction. I am entirely convinced that Paul here sees the vessels of destruction as Jews and Jews only. His whole argument becomes incoherent and senseless, otherwise.

I believe the context of the above verses is that those the Lord chooses as vessels of mercy are both Jews and Gentiles (vs. 24). If this is so, than the passage is not predominantly about the Nation of Israel, but whom God has compassion and mercy upon.

I cannot agree with you here - the entire chapter (and on into chapters 10 and 11) is an argument about Israel, even if other related matters come in on the side. I am surprised that any would disagree with a strong Israel focus.

 

[follower of Christ]

follower of Christ,

Man does not have what it takes to cause something as big as the fall of all of humanity,

Im sorry but apparently man DID...which GODS WORD shows was Adam choosing to DISOBEY...aka 'SIN'.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(Romans 5:12 KJV)

Read it and REread it again until it sinks in.
ONE man started all this...ONE man and his CHOICE to commit SIN !

there is no way little man could of done something this big without God's total blessing

What a laugh.
So now your fallacy has God 'blessing' mans SIN !
There is a huge difference between 'blessing' something and 'permitting' it to happen...

Why do you think man is so all powerfull, especially sense you seem to go out of your way to spin or deny so many valid scriptures.

You have yet to provide anything that SAY that GOD caused mans fall...ie FORCED man to sin against Himself.

I have a lot more too,

Im sure you have a ton of out of context verses youve jammed your error into...

but I know you will spin or deny their content because you do not belive in God's Word; you believe in your own opinion.

I certainly dont believe YOUR perversion of it...