Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Ezekiel 20

Forum Quick Jump

95 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

di
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49

Posted 4/14/2004 11:49 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by di
Thank you Laika. Very helpful. I believe there is no problem holding to the above interpretation while also maintaining that we are born in a fallen, unregenerate state. Would you agree?

No I would not.

Isaiah gives a concise portrait of it:

Isaish 53:6
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

The first two lines tell how we all got into this state:
all "have gone astray" --- that's volitional choices by all of us NOT a condition of us merely being born

"each of us has turned to his own way" --- that's volitional choices by each of us NOT a condition each of us were merely born into

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

"All have sinned" is an volitional verb of action, NOT stating a condition of birth. The bible is full of these. First it's the "have sinned", second the "fall short".

Jesus also was born into this fallen world. Was He a sinner by birth?

No, Jesus was not a sinner by birth. But Jesus has two distinct natures, divine and human. That's altogether different than our situation of having just one human nature; which I'd always understood to be unregenerate, cut off from God because of the Fall.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/14/2004 12:15 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by di
No, Jesus was not a sinner by birth. But Jesus has two distinct natures, divine and human. That's altogether different than our situation of having just one human nature; which I'd always understood to be unregenerate, cut off from God because of the Fall.

So He couldn't have been tempted like us, because we're sinners by birth and He wasn't. He didn't share our condition.

That's like saying a ten foot tall person can sympathize with my lack of ability to dunk the basketball because he, too, cannot dunk the basketball.

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

If Jesus did not have the potential to sin, then why does scripture make points about His obedience to God? And His resisting temptation and sinless life?

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/14/2004 12:32 PM (GMT -6)

Di, here's a fuller look at this, I hope I'm not overwhelming you.

Let's look at Romans 5 and see what Paul is saying. First a dictionary definition of "parallel"

parallel -- duplicate or match (means they're the same or similar)

Now does Paul parallel Adam's sin and Jesus' righteousness?

Romans 5:
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Look at the red words. "As" <this>, "even so" <that>
That is Paul parallelling the two, showing how they are duplicate or match.

How did Adam's sin result in condemnation to all men? Automatically?
Then so, too, did Jesus' act result in justification to all men automatically.

But that would be universalism, believing that all will be justified simply by being born.
The gift of Jesus' work has to be received, it's NOT automatic. Then neither is Adam's sin.
Adam made sin available in the world, all men chose to sin.
Romans 5:12 again

That is what Paul is showing in verses 18 and 19. He reinforces it in verse 19. If through one man's disobedience we are all automatically made sinners (a sinner is one who "sins"), then through one man's obedience we all automatically will be made righteous. ??? Nope.

Christ's work of obedience has to be accepted as a replacement for our own worthless efforts at righteousness. So if Christ's work has to be chosen, so too, do we choose to commit sin against God.

The parallelism shows how the two acts are similar in scope.

Then Paul goes on to draw a distinction between Adam's act and Jesus' act.
Now he shows how they are different in power:

Romans 5:
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Jesus' act does much more than did Adam's. How is this so? Everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's glory, yet not everyone will share in Christ's righteousness. On the surface Adam's making sin available and everyone choosing to sin seems more comprehensive in scope than Christ's work. Everyone has sinned but not everyone will be saved.

Because everyone's sinful state is their own choice and NOT automatic is why the second act is more powerful than the first. Example:

Let's say I give you two assignments, you tell me which is more difficult.

Assignment one: You are to go into an elementary classroom, a room full of kids who have to be there by someone else's choice, the schoolboard and their parents, NOT by their own choice. You are to go in and tell them school is out and they can leave. Tough assignment? No, they fly out of that room. Why? Because they are NOT there by choice.

Assignment two: It's a summer evening and all the kids in the neighborhood are playing 'kick the can' down the street. (This is my neighborhood)
Your job is to go tell your kids, it's time to come in and go to bed. Easy assignment? No, they balk, they don't want to come in. Why? Because they are there by choice.

Christ's act has to be more powerful to overcome what we have all chosen.

If I'm a sinner by birth, it's not me who put me in that state and it isn't Adam either, he's dead. It has to be God imputing sin to me. And if He can impute sin to me so easily, He can just as easily un-impute it.

Here's other reasons why I think "inherited sin" is unsupported by scripture:

1. Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

How can He say He was tempted like me if I was born a sinner and sin because I'm a sinner and He wasn't?

The reason Jesus came to earth was to enter into our dilemma. If we're born sinners and He is born NOT a sinner, then He wasn't tempted like us because He NEVER entered into our condition.

And thus, He can't be our High Priest.

2. There's zillions of instances where God commands and expects obedience. How can He do this if we're unable to comply?

Genesis 4:6
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

What's all these conditionals? "If", "if not....", "You must master it". Is this a cruel joke on God's part? Do we tell our children they must do something when we know they don't have the ability to do it? "Slam dunk this basketball if you want supper tonight". Eyebrow

That God commands and expects obedience is a dead giveaway that we have the ability to comply.

3. Adam sinned by choice. That's what sin is, a volitional choice of action against God. Why would sin be different for us, a state of having been born? That's totally illogical. If your parents are skiers and you're born, are you immediately a skier? No, you've NEVER skied, hence you're not a skier.
So why are people (infants) who have never sinned, considered sinners?

I'd think it stupid and unfair for God to punish blue-eyed people. Or people born in Texas. Or born left-handed. These are conditions of birth. Sin is not. It's a choice.

O.K. no more long posts....

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

di
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49

Posted 4/14/2004 12:44 PM (GMT -6)

Laika, you are not overwhelming me...I haven't read your last post yet but will do so later tonight and respond.

Thank you!

di
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49

Posted 4/14/2004 6:38 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Laika
"Slam dunk this basketball if you want supper tonight".

Perhaps I could if I was not merely but rather fully human!

But hey, must this become a Christology debate?
If so, do you hold to the classical or kenotic view?

Laika, I'm with you all the way through Romans 5.

quote:
Originally posted by Laika
So why are people (infants) who have never sinned, considered sinners?

I'd think it stupid and unfair for God to punish blue-eyed people. Or people born in Texas. Or born left-handed. These are conditions of birth. Sin is not. It's a choice.

Neither would I consider people (infants) who have never sinned sinners. How can you be a sinner if you have not yet sinned? But this does not mean you are not born unregenerate, in need of regeneration because of the Fall...I see a difference between these two states.

di
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49

Posted 4/15/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6)

Laika, you said you believe we are born morally neutral; got that, and I do follow your reasoning and Biblical interpretations. Could you also say we are born spiritually alive, and upon our first choice to sin, God removes his spirit from us, we are separated/cut off from God, spiritually dead without the Holy Spirit in our heart and now are in need of spiritual rebirth/regeneration?

thanks for your patience...if indeed you have any left for me Blush

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/15/2004 7:10 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by di

Laika, you said you believe we are born morally neutral; got that, and I do follow your reasoning and Biblical interpretations. Could you also say we are born spiritually alive, and upon our first choice to sin, God removes his spirit from us, we are separated/cut off from God, spiritually dead without the Holy Spirit in our heart and now are in need of spiritual rebirth/regeneration?

thanks for your patience...if indeed you have any left for me

Yeah, I would buy that. As long as Jesus and I share the same conditions at birth, we both had the same potential to sin, we both had the same potential to NOT sin, He lived a sinless life, I haven't, then He can be my High Priest because He was tempted in all ways just like me.

That's what so comforting to me about the gospel. God came to earth and took on the same existence as me. Not as a Superman which temptation has no draw on, but as a man who had to fight to resist temptation. Real blood, real tears, real sweat, real sympathy.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 4/15/2004 7:38 AM (GMT -6)

Laika,

What do you mean by:

quote:
That's what so comforting to me about the gospel. God came to earth and took on the same existence as me. Not as a Superman which temptation has no draw on, but as a man who had to fight to resist temptation. Real blood, real tears, real sweat, real sympathy.

It seems that you find comfort in believing in a God who becomes "equal" with you. You seem to imply that if you had only made all the same choices and fought temptation as well as Him from the time of your birth, you could have accomplished the same things as He did (although perhaps not the miracles). Am I even close to what you are meaning to say?

Spen Lake

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/15/2004 8:20 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
It seems that you find comfort in believing in a God who becomes "equal" with you.

Equal in opportunity, not equal in actual outcome ONLY in regards to resisting temptation. I'm not talking about anything else.

quote:

You seem to imply that if you had only made all the same choices and fought temptation as well as Him from the time of your birth, you could have accomplished the same things as He did (although perhaps not the miracles). Am I even close to what you are meaning to say?

No. I'm only talking about opportunity to sin, opportunity to resist temptation.

Did your High Priest experience ANYTHING similar to what you experience?

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 4/15/2004 8:31 AM (GMT -6)

Laika,

quote:
I'm only talking about opportunity to sin, opportunity to resist temptation.

Did your High Priest experience ANYTHING similar to what you experience?

I think that you mean that if I had made all proper choices from birth that I too would be sinless? Does this apply only to external actions of sin or does it apply to internal desires and appetites? Would I be sinless if I only wanted to sin but was afraid to commit the act because of the consequences of action would bring? I assume that you mean that we were once capable of not internally experiencing the appetite of coveting because we chose not to? This must be where we differ?

My High Priest experienced all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. Nothing was found in Him that desired all that the world had to offer Him. Thus He never even had the experience of coveting for Himself because all appetites were subject to the appetite to do His Father's will. Temptation had no hold on Him. He experienced the world and was sinless. He was not afflicted with our incurable disease which is why He could bring healing.

Spen Lake

di
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49

Posted 4/15/2004 8:35 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by Laika

Did your High Priest experience ANYTHING similar to what you experience?

2 Corinthians 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin[ Or be a sin offering] for
us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Jesus vicariously entered fully into our experience of temptation to sin, yielding to sin, feeling guilt for sin, etc. at the moment he bore our sins in his body on the tree - is not that when and where he experienced the FULL effect of our sin – experienced separation from the Father as he became sin - of course he can sympathize with our weakness.

di
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49

Posted 4/15/2004 8:39 AM (GMT -6)

Laika, I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate your honesty, openness and willingness to lay out how you arrive at your belief about this. I’m just processing this through, not arguing with you… I don’t like arguing actually, rather my motive for engaging in this conversation is to gain understanding. Just so ya know...

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/15/2004 9:02 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by di

Laika, I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate your honesty, openness and willingness to lay out how you arrive at your belief about this. I’m just processing this through, not arguing with you… I don’t like arguing actually, rather my motive for engaging in this conversation is to gain understanding. Just so ya know...

So many people I've talked to say, "of course Jesus couldn't sin, He was God" and they completely miss the whole point of the incarnation.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/15/2004 9:04 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
I assume that you mean that we were once capable of not internally experiencing the appetite of coveting because we chose not to? This must be where we differ?

He was not afflicted with our incurable disease which is why He could bring healing.

To say you're born with an incurable appetite is to shirk responsibility. Does God punish us for eating food and breathing air? No. He punishes us for choosing to do that which we have the ability to NOT do.

I do not expect my children to be able to do that which they are incapable of doing and God doesn't either.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

spenlake
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050

Posted 4/15/2004 1:00 PM (GMT -6)

Laika,

Laika asserts:

quote:
To say you're born with an incurable appetite is to shirk responsibility. Does God punish us for eating food and breathing air? No. He punishes us for choosing to do that which we have the ability to NOT do.

No, to say that we're born with an incurable appetite is to say that we are children of our father Adam, and have his nature. We love our appetite and choose to act because we love to desire our own good over that of others, including the Father. God is good and gives all men, good and evil, food and air. He expects us to be grateful for all that He gives and we are not. Instead, we are not content and have an appetite for more - coveting. We are responsible for our coveting and not being content. It is not shirking at all. We are threatened with punishment because we do our own will that we love. This is just like Adam. Jesus loved to do the will of the Father, not His own, and was content with what God gave to Him to do. He was even content to die on the cross for us because it was the Father's good pleasure.

Spen Lake

di
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 49

Posted 4/16/2004 9:22 AM (GMT -6)

Laika,

Let's say my hypothetical husband chooses to engage in an adulterous affair. While I would not share the guilt of his sin, I would share the consequence of his sin. It would affect our future and possibly the nature of our marriage relationship at least temporarily.

Likewise, would you consider it at least possible we enter the world unregenerate as a result of the Fall – albeit not guilty of any particular sin yet – we only become "sinners" when we choose to sin, as evidenced in Romans 5. But now, as a consequence of sin entering the world as a result of the Fall, humankind arrives in the world spiritually dead in need of spiritual rebirth, or regeneration.

Or does Scripture such as Hebrews 4:15 and Genesis 4:6 preclude you from considering that a possibility?

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/17/2004 6:05 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by di
Likewise, would you consider it at least possible we enter the world unregenerate as a result of the Fall – albeit not guilty of any particular sin yet – we only become "sinners" when we choose to sin, as evidenced in Romans 5. But now, as a consequence of sin entering the world as a result of the Fall, humankind arrives in the world spiritually dead in need of spiritual rebirth, or regeneration.

Or does Scripture such as Hebrews 4:15 and Genesis 4:6 preclude you from considering that a possibility?

No, I'd agree with that. You're neither spiritually alive nor dead, but your environment exerts a strong influence.

inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 4/22/2004 3:28 PM (GMT -6)

Tigress,

I haven't read all the replies, but the ones I did read seem to address different points. At the risk of repeating what someone else has already said, I would say that, though we can't help but sin before conversion (since flesh cannot keep a spiritual law - see Romans 8), it doesn't follow that all Israelites were completely incapable of keeping any law.

Christ told certain Jews that Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they seen the signs that he did in those Jews' presence - yet the Jews did NOT repent. Consequently, different people are at different levels of hard-heartedness. The whole idea of the "leavening of the lump," is recognized in the Mosaic Law. I.e., societies become more and more corrupt until they cannot repent any more than a leopard can change his spots as God told one of his prophets.

But your question as to why God has allowed this sinful world to continue for so long is the main problem that a theodicy must solve, in my opinion. Has anyone specifically addressed that yet?

wjs

Lee Merrill
booted

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723

Posted 4/23/2004 3:37 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I would say that, though we can't help but sin before conversion (since flesh cannot keep a spiritual law - see Romans 8), it doesn't follow that all Israelites were completely incapable of keeping any law.

I agree that we can't help but sin before conversion!

PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Others would disagree, but I think this verse is clear. And I also believe that total depravity doesn't mean everyone is as bad as they could possibly be.

quote:
But your question as to why God has allowed this sinful world to continue for so long is the main problem that a theodicy must solve, in my opinion. Has anyone specifically addressed that yet?

Peter has! The apostle, that is...

2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

So this would be the first place I would look. What does this verse mean, in your opinion?

Blessings,
Lee

==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 4/23/2004 3:49 PM (GMT -6)

Lee,

I've opened another post called "God's Longsuffering and the Problem of Evil." John Earp has already responded identically to you, there. I'm going to respond to both of you on that post. Thanks for the reply!

wjs

95 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual