Hi , Dave.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:28:59 -0800
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--A&E
DAVEH: As I see it, most traditional Christians believe that God wanted A&E to not transgress, effectively leaving them in a state of naivety. Is that the way you perceive it, John? I believe that A & E 's creation was not complete except IN Christ. Apart from Christ , there is no freedom of choice !! If, in fact, I AM GOING TO SIN, then it can be said that I am not a free moral agent. Rather, I am enslaved. I am thinking that "free moral agency" is the freedom to be what God intended me to be. Another has said that, in Christ, we are free FROM choice and in that circumstance, free to be what God intends us to be. The lesson from Adam and Eve
is straight forward -- we are sinners apart from Christ.
You are right about confusion that could arise from not defining predestined when discussing it. Since I believe A&E existed pre-mortally, the plan of salvation unfolded exactly as God desired it to be implemented. That is not to say that he forced (predestined, as I like to think of it) A&E to transgress. That was their choice. Had they not had such a choice, then they would necessarily be forced to transgress in a predestined manner.......effectively removing their ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. I don't know if any of that makes sense, but as I see it A&E needed to be free of being forced to keep the commandments. IOW....for the plan of salvation to unfold, they needed to have free agency without being predestined (forced) to keep the commandments. ; My point is this -- apart from Christ we are NOT free moral agents !!!! To my thinking, freedom of choice is not the indicator of free moral agency. Only when we are free of those sins that "so easily beset" us can it be said that we have free moral agency. (I must give Victor Shepherd credit for making this teaching clear -- although some of my wording is [slightly] different than his.) I consider God to be free, but He cannot sin. Choice is not His prerogative. He can only do "right." And in that fact we have the explanation as to why He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is the same because He CANNOT be different. He is free to be Himself.
Does it not boil down to which would be better.....for A&E to transgress, or for them not to transgress? Is not the popular assumption that we are worse off with the fall of A&E? Yet had they not transgressed, it seems to me that the plan of salvation would have been much more complicated. I do not agree with this conclusion. Adam and Eve DID NOT bring sin into the lives our lives apart from our own complicity. " .... so death passed to all people because all have sinned" (Ro 5:12). The doctrine of original sin (no matter how it is disguised, i.e. Judy's version) is not something I believe. I have merit the title "sinner" the old fashion way -- I earned it.
Which leads me to another question.....Do you think there could be a mortal existence without needing a plan of salvation? Now that I 've asked that, it seems rather ridiculous, eh! IF there are mortals, it would imply that a plan of salvation is necessary....do you agree? I am starting to feel a bit like I am in court !!! Do we have a loaded question in the works? In the "plan of salvation" (an unbiblical phrase, by the way) we have God's creation of man completed in Christ. You see the "plan" as an academic remedy to the violation of law; I see it as an ontological continuation of the creation story/event and that is why Christ is understood as we view Adam's complicity. Am I making any sense to you?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are right about confusion that could arise from not defining predestined when discussing it. Since I believe A&E existed pre-mortally, the plan of salvation unfolded exactly as God desired it to be implemented. That is not to say that he forced (predestined, as I like to think of it) A&E to transgress. That was their choice. Had they not had such a choice, then they would necessarily be forced to transgress in a predestined manner.......effectively removing their ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. I don't know if any of that makes sense, but as I see it A&E needed to be free of being forced to keep the commandments. IOW....for the plan of salvation to unfold, they needed to have free agency without being predestined (forced) to keep the commandments. ; My point is this -- apart from Christ we are NOT free moral agents !!!! To my thinking, freedom of choice is not the indicator of free moral agency. Only when we are free of those sins that "so easily beset" us can it be said that we have free moral agency. (I must give Victor Shepherd credit for making this teaching clear -- although some of my wording is [slightly] different than his.) I consider God to be free, but He cannot sin. Choice is not His prerogative. He can only do "right." And in that fact we have the explanation as to why He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is the same because He CANNOT be different. He is free to be Himself.
Does it not boil down to which would be better.....for A&E to transgress, or for them not to transgress? Is not the popular assumption that we are worse off with the fall of A&E? Yet had they not transgressed, it seems to me that the plan of salvation would have been much more complicated. I do not agree with this conclusion. Adam and Eve DID NOT bring sin into the lives our lives apart from our own complicity. " .... so death passed to all people because all have sinned" (Ro 5:12). The doctrine of original sin (no matter how it is disguised, i.e. Judy's version) is not something I believe. I have merit the title "sinner" the old fashion way -- I earned it.
Which leads me to another question.....Do you think there could be a mortal existence without needing a plan of salvation? Now that I 've asked that, it seems rather ridiculous, eh! IF there are mortals, it would imply that a plan of salvation is necessary....do you agree? I am starting to feel a bit like I am in court !!! Do we have a loaded question in the works? In the "plan of salvation" (an unbiblical phrase, by the way) we have God's creation of man completed in Christ. You see the "plan" as an academic remedy to the violation of law; I see it as an ontological continuation of the creation story/event and that is why Christ is understood as we view Adam's complicity. Am I making any sense to you?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't know if it surprises me. But, I do not think we have given enough attention to developing a thorough understanding of their existence before and after the "fall." It seems to me that the "fall" is more clearly taught in Church Tradition than exegetically. But I am guilty of my own criticism at this point !As with many words, "predestined" might carry a different meaning to you than to myself. I believe that A&E were going to fail, and in this observation, one could argue that they were predestined to fail. But I would never use that word in this case because of the confusion it might cause. Adam and Eve's story is not about the "fall," IMO, Rather, their account is the first sentence in the story of the Incarnation. I see them as the first to receive the lesson that - as law breakers -- there must be more to their lives than themselves and their obedience/disobedience. And it is always "obedience slash disobedience," isn't it? Those two terms cannot be separated ------- -------------&n bsp; except in Christ. If we do not&nbs p;see their story (and again, this is my feeble consideration) as INCOMPLETE apart for their eventual attachment to Christ, we miss the point and become Plan B disciples. To my way of thinking, the bible message is about Law versus Grace -- death versus life. And that story is not complete, hence the creation event is not complete, apart from all that concerns us and the Christ (our Creator).Man is a sinner apart from Christ's consideration -- even if he is concerned with but a single consideration of law (thou shalt not eat) and, in time, man will validate that truth.jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hansen <dave@langlitz.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:06:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--A&E
No. Actually, I have never heard this question discussed
DAVEH: That rather surprises me. I remember asking Perry a similar question sometime ago, and he blew me off. That rather surprised me at the time, but I did not pursue it.
As I understand, most Christians (including Protestants, RCC and independents) believe that God wanted A&E not to transgress. IFF that was actually his intention, then it seems an interesting thought avenue to pursue. Yet, the few who've responded seem to indicate that they have no interest in pondering what the Lord intended to be. To me, that seems very strange. Does it strike you as rather curious, John?
were A & E predestined to sin?
DAVEH: & nbsp; Yes, I di d ask that question. I do not know what you folks b elieve about predestination and foreordination. Since you apparently do not believe we existed in a pre-mortal state, it would seem to me that you would not believe in either. But....I don't want to assume such without at least asking you first.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:No. Actually, I have never heard this question discussed. You asked me to comment on a question -- perhaps a week ago, now. Aaaahhhhhh, was it "were A & E predestined to sin?jd
DAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what would have happened IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed. Does that discussion ever come up with you folks?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Look -- what are we going to discuss here on TT? We have pretty much said all that can be said about any number of subjects.jd
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
