I just have to say la. That is the geekiest picture of tony i have ever seen :P

The Tree of KOGE is the act of the tithe (Adam could eat from EVERY tree in the garden except for that one), which is also a form of Worship. Hence, although knowing that Man would inevitably fall, God still has to allow Man to choose whether or not he wanted to worship Him. God wants his children to worship Him willingly, not robots.

Haha slow temper eh?


you can't relaly say that we have complete free will because in the end God is the one controlling our every move. Or to be more accurate He knows everything that we are goign to do, so why allow Adam to make the wrong move, might as well save all the trouble no? ^_^

Well Lin, don't get discouraged. In truth, I also don't agree with your point hehe. I believe that God created both Trees because he wanted to give Man free will. If there weren't the Tree of KOGE (Knowledge of Good & Evil - lazy lah hehe), we would have no choice on whether to serve God or fall away from him. Unfortunately, Adam made the wrong choice.


However, the Bible says that God meant all things for good. Paul says "where sin abounds, Grace much more abounds". That doesn't mean we should sin more that Grace can abound much more. People misinterpret him. What he means is that God will turn the worst in us for the best when we repent. Yes man fell, but God turned it around and got back the victory.



In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit only came UPON the Bible heroes like Samson and David. Today, that same Spirit that gave David the victory over Goliath dwells in US. Because of what Christ has done. So perfect was the work of Christ on the cross tha He sat down at God's right hand.



One sacrifice, for sins, forever :)



Keep 'em coming.



p.s. Oooh. I love your slow-temper, dear. It makes me feel so self-conscious ;)

Fair Aronil,


You have friends in high places. It was a good commentary on the Romans passages which Artlegence conveniently read to dispel divine election/reprobation.



Thank God for His election. And praise God for His glory manifested as a Sovereign.



While i understand King Edmund's concern was just to exegete that particular passage, may I humbly also add John 3:16 to our discussion. Indeed someone once told me that the doctrine of election/reprobation is of the Bible. Yet so is John 3:16. Oh great love of our God. He is not only a vase Maker or a toilet bowl Builder (*chuckle* Edmund), but Creator of Man made in His Image. How precious art we! Reminds me of a song i love to hum when i go for my walk



This is my Father’s world. Now closer to Heaven bound,

For dear to God is the earth Christ trod.

No place but is holy ground.



Edmund, Your Majesty, great to have you here. I greet you, in the name of the Great Lion.



Jack

Romans 9:11-26




Cheers~

Edmund

Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call--


she was told, "The older will serve the younger."



As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."



Paul herein declared that God has chosen, in the election of these patriarchs, to demonstrate His favour (love) or otherwise. Jacob's election (whether we thought of it as a national election or personal election), was an election of His redeemed people/remnant. This is the people whom YAHWEH has chosen to love and show grace. Such elections, Jacob’s election, however, was not executed upon the basis of his merits (or demerits) because God’s choosing was not through any works of the subject elected, but through the arbitrary grace of the Elector.



The apostle wanted to demonstrate to the Romans that God's word did not fail against His chosen people Israel, who was supposedly the "elects" yet many have rejected the Messiah. Paul firstly told us that not all who are Israelites are Israelites (9:6). Two babies may come from the same womb, but He who is the Giver dispenses His gifts freely. Two patriarchs may have the same merits by virtue of their relations to Israel, and though Esau had been a son of favour to Isaac, it was Jacob who was chosen to be shown the grace as a people of God.



What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!



Paul anticipated comments on God's justice. If the verses above did not mean what they meant, i.e. that God freely chose one to demonstrate favour and the other, disfavour, without considering even their merits (and the fact that Jacob was not the best model of man), Paul would not have expected this questioning of God's justice. It was precisely such that Paul sought to present that he knew some would afterwards ask these questions. He immediately dispelled the notion that our God was unjust in His election, providing further explanations in succeeding verses.



For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."



So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy



Moses was asking for an affirmation of the uniqueness of God’s Israel, a confirmation of their election, “O’ God, how are we distinct from the rest of the world!” to which YAHWEH answered in affirmative and gave the assurance, or rather the Blessed Assurance of His free grace.



Paul wanted to emphasize that God has all the rights to show favouritism. This time, he presented it from another perspective, i.e. God’s election must be seen as His compassionate action. It was as if Paul was trying to tell you, “God could have destroyed us along but He didn’t. Bask in thankfulness for such great mercy”. We are really helpless in this sense, because it was God’s initiation.



This is the operation of the game: The first move is God’s - - so then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God. To charge God to be unjust for following the rule is absurdity. It is our standard of justice that must change to conform to God’s.



(As a matter of fact, God’s righteousness compels Him to secure His sovereignty, and this He displayed by His free election. If ever His hands were tied, if ever He was subjected to factors external to Himself, God will cease to be God.)





For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."



So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.





Now Paul contrasted the operation of God towards Moses and towards Pharaoh; towards Israel and towards Egypt. Just as Israel was the elect nation, Egypt was God’s reprobate. As Moses was shown favour, Pharaoh was shown contempt. And perhaps some will say, “Pharaoh was with disbelief, he by his own might has rebel against God Almighty, therefore God has hardened his heart”. But the blessed apostle himself commented that God hardened whomever he wills, that is to say, once again it was God’s arbitrary and free will, no one may recommend themselves to him for this matter, that decides whom He shall disdain.



We are presented with yet another example of God’s election, though this is an example of His terrible election to reprobation. Just as He freely elects some to grace, he freely elects others to condemnation.



You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"



But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"



Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?



Once again, Paul anticipated some to question the operations of God in His election. “If it was God who cause some to be in state of grace while others to be in state of reprobation, is it not fair that He still judges us at all?”



To such these questioners, Paul sought to put them in true perspective. Why do we elevate ourselves to that level of which is not ours to stand? Indeed let us take a look at our own material inventions, do we not possessed every rights to make them this way or the other? Does not the human maker freely build one porcelain to hold beautiful flowers and another porcelain for the disposal of our bodily waste? And does anyone condemn him for such actions? And do the porcelains deserve any rights to question the purpose for which they were created?



Let us put ourselves back to that creaturely humility and acknowledge the greatness of God Almighty, Paul seemly said to the Christians who questioned the justice of YAHWEH. Beware lest we make a “just” god of our own image as we reject the “unjust” God in Whose image we were created.



What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,



in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--



even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?



As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"



"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"





Herein Paul explained the purpose of the election of God, which Christians ought to receive with a gladsome gratitude and which to those still yet to submit to Christ, ought to consider His gracious providence. The free election of God is a display of His power, hence a demonstration of His glory. God is shown not only as a Sovereign Who has secured full management of the whole affairs of the universe, which is demonstrated here in His freedom to grant mercy and penalty, He was also presented as a most loving and gracious God. This is the God Who loves His chosen people, Who cares for them and Who caters for them even in their most undeserving state. What great emotional comfort for us to know that, whereas once we were His enemy, we are now called by Him, “My people”. Whereas once we were not loved, we are now called by Him, “My beloved”. Whereas we were once strangers, we are now called “sons of the living God”.



Such is the great mercy of our God. He could have drowned us all along with the reprobates, yet He chose to deal with us with tender grace. Shall we who have tasted such loving kindness call God unjust and accuse Him of a crime as He sought to secure His own sovereignty? If He is tied and powerless, would we then call Him loving? That is not our God! His business is to seek and secure His own glory and it is only apt that He does so.



I quote Dr. John Piper to conclude this exposition:



“Since God's righteousness consists in his acting unswervingly for his own name's sake (=glory) and since his glory consists largely in his sovereign freedom in election, God is not unrighteous to disregard human deeds and distinctives in choosing whom he wills to bless. In fact he must pursue his purpose of election in this way in order to remain righteous, for only in his sovereign, free bestowal of mercy on whomever he wills is God acting out of a full delight in his own glory.”



Edmund the Just



p/s my sister once said of God, "terrible paws (He has), if He didn't know how to velvet them"

Aronil,


What is the origin of SIN? if the sin of satan is primary and human, secondary...



You wrote " Lucifer turn evil naturally". How and what is 'naturally'?



Echoing artlegence and edmund, the strong statement you wrote,

"The reason he placed the two trees there was for the human race, the people he had created to worship to FALL! Yes my brothers and sisters. Adam took the fruit from the forbidden tree so that we may fall"....does imply very much that God purposely tempted adam.



These are some of the questions that came across me when i read your entry.



But good effort to post such bold entry :)



-enn@j

Artlegence:


Aronil, we are learning from one another from time to time. I am sorry for any offences in my previous comment. Hope my ignorance didnt cause much unpleasantness.



Edmund, yes, i should be charitable and clarifying at the same time. Concerning the doctrine that God condemns inhabitants IN hell, i hav nothing agaisnt it, but what i meant by "...God wanted Man to fall. And by the fall, humans who are condemn to hell. So consequently, it is God who send people to hell. BLASPHEMY!!"

was that some people holds some idea that logically lead to the above conclusion that says 'ultimately, it is God who choose/ elect some to be send to hell before the world began.'



Romans 9:21 can be understand as God reserved/owns the rights to "determine" some to condemnation but He doesnt do it cos it would contradict His nature as a merciful God, which is the main point that Paul tried to bring across (Romans 9:16-25).



Following the verses before vv.21, Paul was trying to explain God's mercy, and he gave an hypotheses drawn from the Exodus.



just to clarify.

=)

Artlegence,


While I do not say that i fully agree with this thoughts expounded in this entry, i must say that your critic is rather unfair.



For one, the doctrine which you viewed so blasphemous, i.e. that it is God who condemns, is being held throughout the history of the church as the doctrine of reprobation of God. Perhaps here is not a good forum to discuss this doctrine, but suffice to say it is not as blasphemous as you would have it sound. The Potter indeed reserved the right to make out of the same lump of clay one vessel for his glory and the other to contain his wrath - Rom9:21



Maybe a little more charity in your comment next time? :)



-------------------



Aronil;



Do note particularly that one's choice of words are very vital when writing such an essay. See how Artlegence tried to compete against your semantics. It is one thing to use BOLD and LOUD sentences to bring across a point, i.e. "The reason he placed the two trees was for the human race...to FALL", but you must clarify and qualify your statements in order that you will not confuse readers. If I do not give you the benefit of doubt, i would construe u as saying God was indeed the tempter.



Do note also your formulation of the begining of sin in paragraph 3. Once again, what you said was too vague and are not supported either by scripture or by logic. The whole idea is too frail to stand as an argument. Do review this paragraph so as to provide a better understanding of your thoughts to us, your readers.



And I agree with Artlegence about your category of satan's sin and man's sin. I suspect the effect of sin is different in both creatures, but i doubt it is the same kind of differences that you mentioned. Paul did write, So they are without excuse when referring to sinful humanity (Rom1:20). Romans 1 also charged that we ought to know better, thus further implying that we can know.



I really appreciate the good effort that you have put into this entry, but i do hope that you will strive to improve your thoughts by further studies and research. May God bless your fervent to find truth and wisdom and May he grant these to you as you seek Him who is the Truth (Jn14:16) and the Wisdom(1cor1:24).



Edmund

Dear artlegence,
My apologies if what i have written has seem to be offensive to you. For i have not intended for my entry to be blasphemous or contradicting.



Possibly i have not explained in a proper manner,and for that i welcome your criticism, as this is where i shall learn to be careful with what i utter.



I'll say this, what i wrote here is only base on what i have thought. It is my fault for not having written a clear statement.



The purpose of the two trees, I'll say is for a much bigger purpose in God's ultimate plan. I do not know the answer of what it maybe for, as it is too much for my infinite mind to comprehend, but this is what i have gathered from my thoughts.

Artlegence


Overall, i would say, your entry filled with HERETICS, HERETICS and HERETICS.

Artlegence


You wrote: "The reason he placed the two trees there was for the human race, the people he had created to worship to FALL! Yes my brothers and sisters. Adam took the fruit... so that we may fall."



You are implying that God wanted Man to fall. And by the fall, humans who are condemn to hell. So consequently, it is God who send people to hell. BLASPHEMY!!



secondly, Adam took the fruit not because we may fall, but because he wanted to be like God (Genesis 3:6).



You wrote:"he (satan) is what one calls the primary sin, the sinner of all sinners."



Apotles Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:15(NKJV) - This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.



Paul described himself as the chief of sinner. So if Satan if the sinner of sinners, what makes the chief of sinners?



You wrote:"The sin that we hold are secondary, not pure sin".



What then is pure sin? What do you mean by secondary sin? Sinner is convicted of the very (primary) sin that they have commited. If Sin is determined, so to say "secondary", then the guilt should be on the primary.



You wrote:"Lucifer turned evil naturally, thus becoming satan"



It was not NATURAL for an good being to turn evil. And by the way, how did you know Lucifer was "innocent"? If you say, he was once sinless, i agree, but if you say that he was once (like Adam n Eve) innocent having no knowledge of good and evil; this i doubt. And there is no Scripture that i know of to support this statement.



And a few lines later, you added:

"Satan on the other hand was conscious of the sin that he was doing. he knew he was retaliating against God."



If he was conscious of good and evil, then he wasnt innocent. Self-contradicting.



You wrote:"We are not aware of the sin we do". Then, quoted Luke 23:34.



First, if we are not aware of the sin that we do, that simply means we are not sinning. One can only be guilty of when he knows that he is doing wrong. Will you scold a Down Syndrome for failing to fold a paper plane?



Secondly, Luke 23:34 was said to those soldiers that were there, following orders, to crucify Christ. NOT TO EVERYONE. And it was said after the Fall, which doesnt make sense if you use it to support your statement of Man before the fall.