• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Explain James 1:13 in view of Matthew 4:1

The idea of a superhuman personal devil is false.
Temptations all humans experience come from their own desires of the flesh.
There is an awful lot of scripture to disagree with you. I hope you know that. To get past your simple assertion to proof is a long road.
 
Addition to post #35

If God made Adam choose to sin then Adam either had no will created in him or he did not choose according to his will.
If Adam chose to sin, uncaused, then God is not omnipotent and the law of cause-and-effect is void, and events come about of their own, uncaused. Chance, Randomness, Chaos and multiple 'first causes' prevail over God the so-called 'creator'. God's just one of many first causes, if Adam chose to sin uncaused.
 
But the particular desire Adam had was not a creation.
Interesting ..., that could be true. God could create everything and leave a defect. Like I can construct a car and all the parts be perfect, but not put in "spark plugs". The car won't run properly. By analogy, God could do the same; leave out a part that would cause a defect leading to Adam's sin. Either way the cause of the car of Adam not working well would be me and God respectively IMO.

If it was the desire God gave him, it would not be sin.
Sin is sin because God so declares it to be so, not because any conditions. God makes the rules and if the don't seem fair to men, so be it.

Don't confuse ordaining that Adam would sin with being the cause of Adam's sin.
Hmmm... seems to be the same thing ..

Answer from Artificial Intelligence: Yes, "ordain" can be a synonym for "cause" in certain contexts.
While it's not a direct synonym, it can be used to imply a divine or authoritative decree that brings about a particular outcome.
For example:
Direct cause: "The heavy rain caused the flood."
Ordained cause: "Fate ordained that they would meet."
In the second example, "ordained" suggests a higher power or destiny determining the outcome.


Make a distinction in philosophizing between God and man. God is one thing. Man is another thing.
True, though I don't see how that supports your contention the God is not the "cause of all things".

*giggle* you can have the last word if you wish
 
@fastfredy0

I don't know why I voluntarily jumped into this conversation again! Kick me! I will bow out.

Something to keep in mind though.

Instead of approaching this aspect of creation from the POV we have---the whole story before our eyes---view it from that of those who first received it all those years after what we see in Gen until the time of the Exodus and people of the Exodus. What was God conveying to them and why? And why were those first five books of the Law (in our Bible) kept in a sacred place to be read again and again to the entire congregation? And what happened when it was neglected for however many hundreds of years (I would have to check how long it was before Josiah discovered it and tried to establish reform).

. I don't give this as a point up for debate in your op but just as something for you to consider.
 
If Adam chose to sin, uncaused, then God is not omnipotent and the law of cause-and-effect is void, and events come about of their own, uncaused. Chance, Randomness, Chaos and multiple 'first causes' prevail over God the so-called 'creator'. God's just one of many first causes, if Adam chose to sin uncaused.
God caused there to be a choice. God caused man to be a being who makes choices. Where there is an obey, their exists an equal opportunity to disobey. There cannot be a disobey unless there is an obey. There cannot be good unless there is also less than good. There cannot be a front unless there is also a back. An up without a down. Light without darkness. That is cause and effect. The question in my opinion is not who caused Adam to sin but why did God intend for him to sin and make it possible for him to do so?

God is the first cause of all that is. Is God fully perfect good? How then does he cause evil? Evil is anything short of God's measure of good. The effect of everything being good is its potential for perversion. Disobedience to our maker is perversion of what is good.

I see FF has responded so I will read it and see if I want to respond, but after that I am leaving the conversation. And I am leaving mad----at myself for wading in out of my simple depth, the same one, two days in a row!
 
There is an awful lot of scripture to disagree with you. I hope you know that. To get past your simple assertion to proof is a long road.
The road begins with the acknowledgment that there is only One true God and none other but he. All the gods(demons) of the heathen are false gods. Gods which cannot see, hear or speak. Idols and nothing more.
Anyone who does not accept this truth opens the door to all sorts of superstition.
 
Interesting ..., that could be true. God could create everything and leave a defect. Like I can construct a car and all the parts be perfect, but not put in "spark plugs". The car won't run properly. By analogy, God could do the same; leave out a part that would cause a defect leading to Adam's sin. Either way the cause of the car of Adam not working well would be me and God respectively IMO.
God created Adam as he intended to create him for his purposes and his glory. He created a being who was mortal, could die but didn't have to, and who was not corrupted in any way but was able to be corrupted. He did this in order to conquer an enemy---we really are not all that, the center of attention---God is. The end result is a man and a creation that is immortal and incorruptible. Glory be to God! I know that is what he did and I know that is what he is doing because he says so. Why, and why that way is something you will have to ask him, though if he were going to tell you it would already be in his book.
Sin is sin because God so declares it to be so, not because any conditions. God makes the rules and if the don't seem fair to men, so be it.
Sin is anything that falls short of his moral perfection. Adam was created morally perfect.
Hmmm... seems to be the same thing ..
Well, it isn't. Was it God who handed him the fruit of the forbidden tree? Was it God who deceived Eve?
Answer from Artificial Intelligence: Yes, "ordain" can be a synonym for "cause" in certain contexts.
While it's not a direct synonym, it can be used to imply a divine or authoritative decree that brings about a particular outcome.
For example:
Direct cause: "The heavy rain caused the flood."
Ordained cause: "Fate ordained that they would meet."
In the second example, "ordained" suggests a higher power or destiny determining the outcome.
I am not concerned with implications and suggestions, and analogies, or speculations on what the Bible does not say. Only what it does say.
 
Demonstrate how —or more to the point, how it makes any difference which happened first.

Because something may be true at the time, but later on it would not apply.
The Bible teaches in Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man. At the time it was true, but when Jesus was incarnated it was no longer applicable.
 
Because something may be true at the time, but later on it would not apply.
The Bible teaches in Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man. At the time it was true, but when Jesus was incarnated it was no longer applicable.
What does the fact that God is not a man have to do with the principle of God not tempting anyone, in the way you propose here?

"Because something may be true at the time, but later on it would not apply." BTW, are you saying that God in the past used to tempt people?

"The Bible teaches in Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man. At the time it was true, but when Jesus was incarnated it was no longer applicable." Explain that logic. How do you know that "God is not a man" in the context of Numbers 23:19 no longer applied after Jesus was incarnated? The New Testament does not change who the Son of God is: He has been the same from before the beginning. The fact that God came as man to save us does not change what God is, nor does it contradict Numbers 23:19, where, rather obviously, it is saying that God is not like us, to lie nor change his mind as we do.

You are trying to proof-text without seeing what the text is really saying.
 
The road begins with the acknowledgment that there is only One true God and none other but he. All the gods(demons) of the heathen are false gods. Gods which cannot see, hear or speak. Idols and nothing more.
Anyone who does not accept this truth opens the door to all sorts of superstition.
Agreed that they are false gods. How does that mean that there are no real demons? Who is talking about superstition? Is, or is not, Satan, (and his minions), involved in attempting to block God's way anyhow he can? Is, or is not, Satan involved in tempting more than just Eve? Most definitely he is.

And that doesn't mean that temptations don't come from our evil desires. Satan uses those. And that doesn't mean that "the devil made me do it". It only means that Satan is involved in tempting us to sin.
 
What does the fact that God is not a man have to do with the principle of God not tempting anyone, in the way you propose here?

Which is explained by what I wrote in the following:

"Because something may be true at the time, but later on it would not apply."




BTW, are you saying that God in the past used to tempt people?

Nope. Don't try changing the subject.


"The Bible teaches in Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man. At the time it was true, but when Jesus was incarnated it was no longer applicable." Explain that logic.

What is described in Numbers took place many centuries before Christ became a man.


How do you know that "God is not a man" in the context of Numbers 23:19 no longer applied after Jesus was incarnated?

Because Jesus is God.



The New Testament does not change who the Son of God is:

He wasn't a man before the incarnation.



He has been the same from before the beginning.

God yes, but He wasn't always a man from the beginning.

The fact that God came as man

Many centuries later.

to save us does not change what God is, nor does it contradict Numbers 23:19, where, rather obviously, it is saying that God is not like us, to lie nor change his mind as we do.

As all men (besides Christ do). You can also extend this to what is asserted in Hosea 11:9.


You are trying to proof-text without seeing what the text is really saying.

That is what you are doing.
 
God caused there to be a choice. God caused man to be a being who makes choices. Where there is an obey, their exists an equal opportunity to disobey. There cannot be a disobey unless there is an obey. There cannot be good unless there is also less than good. There cannot be a front unless there is also a back. An up without a down. Light without darkness. That is cause and effect. The question in my opinion is not who caused Adam to sin but why did God intend for him to sin and make it possible for him to do so?

God is the first cause of all that is. Is God fully perfect good? How then does he cause evil? Evil is anything short of God's measure of good. The effect of everything being good is its potential for perversion. Disobedience to our maker is perversion of what is good.

I see FF has responded so I will read it and see if I want to respond, but after that I am leaving the conversation. And I am leaving mad----at myself for wading in out of my simple depth, the same one, two days in a row!

Ok, I'll back off. Lol, I consider you over my depth! I only know how to fight simple logical problems, not quite yet just how to fit them to convincing people.
 
Interesting ..., that could be true. God could create everything and leave a defect. Like I can construct a car and all the parts be perfect, but not put in "spark plugs". The car won't run properly. By analogy, God could do the same; leave out a part that would cause a defect leading to Adam's sin. Either way the cause of the car of Adam not working well would be me and God respectively IMO
I think that is "thinking too hard". What was perfect about Adam was, his not-yet-corrupted nature, and perfectly made for God's eventual purpose in creating-mankind-to-begin-with, which necessarily includes Adam's fall, and his ability to fall. This life was never intended for this life.
 
Because Jesus is God.
The syllogism does not follow:
"Axiom A: God is not a man",​

Given that: Jesus is God, and more specifically,​
Given that: Jesus was God become man,​
Therefore: Axiom A is defeated.​


Is Jesus still a man?

Can you claim Jesus is God is man, and answer how God says nobody can see God and live, yet many saw Jesus?
 
Ok, I'll back off. Lol, I consider you over my depth! I only know how to fight simple logical problems, not quite yet just how to fit them to convincing people.
You should try being a naturally left handed person that was forced to be right handed (different sides of the brain dominating the type of thinking) and see what happens! I have arguments with myself sometimes over the same point, different perspectives.
 
I don't know why I voluntarily jumped into this conversation again! Kick me!
Consider yourself kicked... giggle
I appreciate your demeanor and intelligent posts. We agree most of the time (which may mean we both wrong together ;) )
 
Well, it isn't. Was it God who handed him the fruit of the forbidden tree? Was it God who deceived Eve?
No, God did not hand Adam the fruit and did not deceive Eve. But that is not the point. I can shot a gun that causes the gun powder to propel a metal projectile through someone's heart, thus killing him. So, is it proper for me to say "it was the bullet that killed the guy, not me"? Of course not. God put everything together according to His plan. God is Spirit so you can't see the mechanism's that lead to Adam eating the fruit as we do my bullet through the heart illustration. God created Satan and Satan's desires. Satan couldn't torture Job without God's O.K. and same with Satan and Adam. God creates Adam's desires, set up a situation where Adam will sin according to God's plan, gives Satan instructions which God knows Satan will comply with, said instructions will trigger Adam's God created desires ... and voila, first sin.
 
The Bible teaches in Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man. At the time it was true, but when Jesus was incarnated it was no longer applicable.
Well, you have a problem with that statement.
If God is immutable and yet you say He changes into a material being you have a contradiction.

Because something may be true at the time, but later on it would not apply.
Something that is true at a particular time remains true for eternity. You are comparing two events as if they were one. The wall is red at 1 pm and the wall is green at 2 pm. Both statements are true and will always be true.
 
Back
Top