What is Faith in the Bible?

[Arial]

For the very same reason that Eve saw that the forbidden fruit was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. She liked it. There is lust of the flesh because it feels good even if it is wrong. Same with lust of the eyes, it is pleasurable even if it is wrong. Same with pride of life.

We sin because we like it, it gives us pleasure, it makes us feel good, it's fun.

Maybe what you are confused about is why any of those things are wrong. That is a different question.

So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires? No one denies that we sin because we like it. The question is, how did we get that way, every last one of us. Were we created that way?

 

[JIM]

So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires? No one denies that we sin because we like it. The question is, how did we get that way, every last one of us. Were we created that way?

Yes.

When Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise", that was the way she was created. But that wasn't her sin. There was nothing wrong with her knowing and understanding that. Her sin was in seeing that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she choose to disobey God and ate the forbidden fruit.

 

[Arial]

Yes.

When Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise", that was the way she was created. But that wasn't her sin. There was nothing wrong with her knowing and understanding that. Her sin was in seeing that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she choose to disobey God and ate the forbidden fruit.

JIM all your hoopla in which you claim that Reformed theology presents God as creating sin and therefore being responsible for man's sinfulness---and here you say that God did just that. Where is your doctrine of God as good and perfect in that? You have a perfect God creating something that is imperfect. And you have a good God creating something that is not good.

The question you answered yes to was the following:

So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires?

If he created them with sinful desires then they were already sinful beings. "If a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her." Even wasn't even charged with sin. She was deceived. It was Adam who changed the entire course of human history.

 

[makesends]

For the very same reason that Eve saw that the forbidden fruit was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. She liked it. There is lust of the flesh because it feels good even if it is wrong. Same with lust of the eyes, it is pleasurable even if it is wrong. Same with pride of life.

We sin because we like it, it gives us pleasure, it makes us feel good, it's fun.

Maybe what you are confused about is why any of those things are wrong. That is a different question.

Why did Eve see that the forbidden fruit was good for food and a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make on wise? Why did she like it? Why is there lust of the flesh because it feels good even if it is wrong? Why the same with lust of the eyes? Why the same with the pride of life? WHO set up these principles by which all this is true? WHO determines who will and who will not?

"Maybe what you are confused about" is because you can't even comprehend my question; you still fail to see what I'm getting at, that your worldview refuses to see. But, we can do this till you get to the end of reasoning, to see that whatever comes to pass, does so by God's decree, which is not at all confusing. I'm not sure that even then, or no matter how many times I repeat this, that you are even able to see the point. It just doesn't appear in your self-deterministic mindset.

So far, I'd like to believe you only purposely turn your back on my obvious question, of why some choose evil and some choose good, yet never anywhere near 50-50, but according to God's election and causation. You wiggle but don't even seem to know you are doing so. You haven't begun to show what the difference is, between what happens in the two cases. WHY do the few become saved, but the many consigned to reprobation? Why not approximately the same? WHAT makes that difference?

But if you are really puzzled as to what I'm asking, and all you can do to explain is to kick the can of causation on down the road, we can do that.

Continue.

 

[makesends]

JIM all your hoopla in which you claim that Reformed theology presents God as creating sin and therefore being responsible for man's sinfulness---and here you say that God did just that. Where is your doctrine of God as good and perfect in that? You have a perfect God creating something that is imperfect. And you have a good God creating something that is not good.

The question you answered yes to was the following:

If he created them with sinful desires then they were already sinful beings. "If a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her." Even wasn't even charged with sin. She was deceived. It was Adam who changed the entire course of human history.

Either way, @JIM , even if you are right about her being sinful, you have admitted to causation by God. If he made them that way, then you have, according to your reasoning, blamed God for her sin, because logic readily admits that God made her whatever she was, and that God even set up the circumstances by which the events came to pass.

Again, you just showed that God made her the way she was. But only the Reformed view of the facts shows that God, in causing whatsoever comes to pass, is NOT to blame, but to be credited for his wisdom and grace. He does not operate on our level. Or maybe, more to the point, we don't operate on his level.

 

[JIM]

JIM all your hoopla in which you claim that Reformed theology presents God as creating sin and therefore being responsible for man's sinfulness---and here you say that God did just that. Where is your doctrine of God as good and perfect in that? You have a perfect God creating something that is imperfect. And you have a good God creating something that is not good.

What are you talking about? I have never claimed God created sin and therefore is responsible for man's sinfulness. I have said that is what Reformed Theology doe, and that through the nasty teaching of Total Depravity. All I have ever claimed relative to this discussion is that God created mankind with free-will to choose to obey or not. That is what you deny.

The question you answered yes to was the following:

If he created them with sinful desires then they were already sinful beings. "If a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her." Even wasn't even charged with sin. She was deceived. It was Adam who changed the entire course of human history.

Something you do not seem to understand. The sin isn't in the temptation. Even Jesus was tempted. The sin is in yielding to the temptation. Then what is temptation? Temptation is being confronted with a situation, any situation, that would be enticing or alluring.

And where did you get the idea that Eve wasn't "charged" with sin. Of course she was. Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

She right along with Adam was kicked out of the Garden.

 

[JIM]

Either way, @JIM , even if you are right about her being sinful, you have admitted to causation by God. If he made them that way, then you have, according to your reasoning, blamed God for her sin, because logic readily admits that God made her whatever she was, and that God even set up the circumstances by which the events came to pass.

That is your view of things because you reject the truth that God created mankind with the free-will to choose to obey Him or not. God didn't cause anyone to disobey Him. Granting mankind the free-will to choose did not cause anyone to disobey. It permitted disobedeince, it did not cause disobedience.

Again, you just showed that God made her the way she was. But only the Reformed view of the facts shows that God, in causing whatsoever comes to pass, is NOT to blame, but to be credited for his wisdom and grace. He does not operate on our level. Or maybe, more to the point, we don't operate on his level.

And that is but one reason why your determinist view is so wrong. Permission is not causation.

 

[JIM]

But if you are really puzzled as to what I'm asking, and all you can do to explain is to kick the can of causation on down the road, we can do that.

Continue.

I am not puzzled by what you are asking. I know exactly what you are asking. But it is obvious that you do not know and understand the correct answer to your question. And that because your question is all entangled with your false concept of determinism.

 

[Arial]

What are you talking about? I have never claimed God created sin and therefore is responsible for man's sinfulness. I have said that is what Reformed Theology doe, and that through the nasty teaching of Total Depravity. All I have ever claimed relative to this discussion is that God created mankind with free-will to choose to obey or not. That is what you deny.

It does no good to say something and then deny saying it. I asked "So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires?" And you answered "Yes." And then tried to do an end run around it by distorting the question I asked. You combined two of my posts leaving out the question entirely, separating what you quoted from its context so you could change the subject. Here it is.

The question you answered yes to was the following:

And I gave the question quote as I did above. You put that quote and the quote below together, leaving out the question.

If he created them with sinful desires then they were already sinful beings. "If a man lusts after a woman in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her." Even wasn't even charged with sin. She was deceived. It was Adam who changed the entire course of human history.

And changed the subject;

Something you do not seem to understand. The sin isn't in the temptation. Even Jesus was tempted. The sin is in yielding to the temptation. Then what is temptation? Temptation is being confronted with a situation, any situation, that would be enticing or alluring.

And where did you get the idea that Eve wasn't "charged" with sin. Of course she was. Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

She right along with Adam was kicked out of the Garden.

But as to that: Jesus said in the quote from him that I gave, that you are wrong about that. And it completely fails to address the issue of why mankind is "enticed" and "allured" by sinful things. Every last one of us. Are you now stating that Jesus also was enticed and allured by sinful desires but simply didn't give into them? And can you not see that if that were the case, he too would be a sinful being? Those things were around him but they did not entice or allure him. And in his humanity, what was different about him, compared to the rest of us humans? He was not born in Adam.

And yes, Eve bore the penalty of sin. But she was not the one who brought the condition of being a sinner down on all mankind. It was Adam. The Bible never refers to mankind as being "In Eve," only in "in Adam." Concerning the woman God said that from the woman would come the Seed that crushed the serpents head. Eve was not technically in Adam either, but out of Adam. Bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. One.

 

[Eleanor]

It does no good to say something and then deny saying it. I asked "So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires?" And you answered "Yes." And then tried to do an end run around it by distorting the question I asked. You combined two of my posts leaving out the question entirely, separating what you quoted from its context so you could change the subject. Here it is.

And I gave the question quote as I did above. You put that quote and the quote below together, leaving out the question.

And changed the subject;

But as to that: Jesus said in the quote from him that I gave, that you are wrong about that. And it completely fails to address the issue of why mankind is "enticed" and "allured" by sinful things. Every last one of us. Are you now stating that Jesus also was enticed and allured by sinful desires but simply didn't give into them? And can you not see that if that were the case, he too would be a sinful being? Those things were around him but they did not entice or allure him. And in his humanity, what was different about him, compared to the rest of us humans? He was not born in Adam.

And yes, Eve bore the penalty of sin. But she was not the one who brought the condition of being a sinner down on all mankind. It was Adam. The Bible never refers to mankind as being "In Eve," only in "in Adam." Concerning the woman God said that from the woman would come the Seed that crushed the serpents head. Eve was not technically in Adam either, but out of Adam. Bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. One.

 

[Eleanor]

It does no good to say something and then deny saying it. I asked "So God created Adam and Eve with sinful desires?" And you answered "Yes." And then tried to do an end run around it by distorting the question I asked. You combined two of my posts leaving out the question entirely, separating what you quoted from its context so you could change the subject. Here it is.

And I gave the question quote as I did above. You put that quote and the quote below together, leaving out the question.
And changed the subject;

But as to that: Jesus said in the quote from him that I gave, that you are wrong about that. And it completely fails to address the issue of why mankind is "enticed" and "allured" by sinful things. Every last one of us. Are you now stating that Jesus also was enticed and allured by sinful desires but simply didn't give into them?

Heb 4:15-16, Mt 26:39?

And can you not see that if that were the case, he too would be a sinful being? Those things were around him but they did not entice or allure him. And in his humanity, what was different about him, compared to the rest of us humans? He was not born in Adam.

And yes, Eve bore the penalty of sin. But she was not the one who brought the condition of being a sinner down on all mankind. It was Adam. The Bible never refers to mankind as being "In Eve," only in "in Adam." Concerning the woman God said that from the woman would come the Seed that crushed the serpents head. Eve was not technically in Adam either, but out of Adam. Bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. One.

 

[Arial]

Mt 26:39?

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

Are you suggesting that this is a case of Jesus having a sinful desire?

Because I do not see it that way at all. It is a man who is about to experience the unimaginable, crying out to God in anguish. But also with 100% submission and obedience. He had no desire to walk away from what was to come and what he was sent to do. He had a very human desire to not suffer. Yet was completely willing to do so.

 

[Eleanor]

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

Are you suggesting that this is a case of Jesus having a sinful desire?

Was his desire to avoid the will of the Father?
Was his will to obey the Father?

Because I do not see it that way at all. It is a man who is about to experience the unimaginable, crying out to God in anguish. But also with 100% submission and obedience. He had no desire to walk away from what was to come and what he was sent to do. He had a very human desire to not suffer. Yet was completely willing to do so.

 

[makesends]

That is your view of things because you reject the truth that God created mankind with the free-will to choose to obey Him or not. God didn't cause anyone to disobey Him. Granting mankind the free-will to choose did not cause anyone to disobey. It permitted disobedeince, it did not cause disobedience.

Notice that even if your notion (though self-contradictory) that God created mankind with "free-will" [of your particular brand], the determinism is clear. God caused, whatever construction is the truth, whatsoever comes to pass, in that very creating. You can't defeat that logic.

And that is but one reason why your determinist view is so wrong. Permission is not causation.

See above. Did God create whatever system you think is universally true? Then he caused whatsoever comes to pass/

I am not puzzled by what you are asking. I know exactly what you are asking. But it is obvious that you do not know and understand the correct answer to your question. And that because your question is all entangled with your false concept of determinism.

Prove what I believe wrong, that even under your system, IF God created it the way you put it, it is still all caused by God, from the beginning.

Now if you can prove the self-contradictory notion that to create is not to cause, have at it.

 

[makesends]

Was his desire to avoid the will of the Father?
Was his will to obey the Father?

@Arial, I can only guess here, that @Eleanor is not claiming Jesus' desires were as such sinful, but that the question needs to be dissected or the terms of it defined.

The same question has been, and will be again, no doubt , addressed in the matter of how to interpret certain passages, popular among those insisting on self-determinism, referring to 'God's will' or 'God wanting' or 'God planning' something that did not or will not end up happening.

 

[Arial]

Was his desire to avoid the will of the Father?

No. He said your will not mine be done. His desire was to not suffer if there was any other way.

Was his will to obey the Father?

Yes, he said so.

Now, if it is terms that need defined of the question dissected as per @makesends then lets do that if you want. However, I don't know what term needs to be defined or how the question would be dissected. Or whose question.

 

[makesends]

No. He said your will not mine be done. His desire was to not suffer if there was any other way.

Yes, he said so.

Now, if it is terms that need defined of the question dissected as per @makesends then lets do that if you want. However, I don't know what term needs to be defined or how the question would be dissected. Or whose question.

Ok. Maybe I'm a little overly defensive of @Eleanor . I mainly wanted it clear that what she was trying to say had no implication that Jesus' nature (neither his human nor divine nature ) was in any way sinful.

 

[Eleanor]

No. He said your will not mine be done. His desire was to not suffer if there was any other way.

Okay, my question was meant to imply there was no other way.

Yes, he said so.

Now, if it is terms that need defined of the question dissected as per @makesends then lets do that if you want. However, I don't know what term needs to be defined or how the question would be dissected. Or whose question.

 

[Arial]

Okay, my question was meant to imply there was no other way.

Got it!

 

[Arial]

Ok. Maybe I'm a little overly defensive of @Eleanor . I mainly wanted it clear that what she was trying to say had no implication that Jesus' nature (neither his human nor divine nature ) was in any way sinful.

I know that @Eleanor believes that Jesus was in no way sinful. Which is why I asked the question because she responded to my post responding to @JIM in which he was claiming sinful desires are not sin. She had responded with just a chapter and verse followed by a ?. So I asked my question as to what she meant. Blah, blah, blah. We got it straightened out. I was never for a single nano second accusing her of something.