Is evil the result of the absence of God?

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Read what I've highlighted in the Roman Catholic view. You're saying the exact same thing with different words. You're viewing God's grace as a preservative to hold Adam's natural appetites in check. God leaves for a moment, grace is removed, and Adam decays into sin.

You're providing a great apology for the Roman Catholic view of the image of God in man. It's rational and speculative and also very un-Biblical.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Rich,

I realize my foolish error in supposing that a sinless being needs a superadded grace to prevent him/her from falling. However, I'm not quite sure, if I can agree with your argument that, if the Bible doesn't explicitly declare something, we shouldn't either. In other words, Are you saying that we must not make any conclusions of our own out of the truths of the Bible, but rather believe the truths of the Bible alone?

My problem is that my understanding of man's will is not consistent with the functioning of Adam's will. Shouldn't there be a way to harmonize all of Scripture?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

I realize my foolish error in supposing that a sinless being needs a superadded grace to prevent him/her from falling. However, I'm not quite sure, if I can agree with your argument that, if the Bible doesn't explicitly declare something, we shouldn't either. In other words, Are you saying that we must not make any conclusions of our own out of the truths of the Bible, but rather believe the truths of the Bible alone?

If you're asking about good and necessary consequence then we can deduce things by good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures. There is no way to deduce that man was held from sinning in his constituent nature by God's grace. These ideas are arrived at by philosophical ideas brought from outside the Scriptures in the case of the Roman Catholic Church.

In your case, above, you speculate about Satan's sin and I'm telling you there is nothing to start from. Good and necessary consequence has to be grounded in some Scripture. We have none on the nature of Lucifer's fall. We don't know how or why he fell. It is pure speculation and there is nothing Biblical about coming up with some sort of answer that the Scriptures don't provide in order to bolster a case that God must have created man in a way where grace was necessary to keep him from falling.

 

[earl40]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Read what I've highlighted in the Roman Catholic view. You're saying the exact same thing with different words. You're viewing God's grace as a preservative to hold Adam's natural appetites in check. God leaves for a moment, grace is removed, and Adam decays into sin.

You're providing a great apology for the Roman Catholic view of the image of God in man. It's un-Biblical.

I assure you I am not doing this on purpose. I am only asking questions.

"According to them original righteousness did not belong to the nature of man in its integrity, but was something supernaturally added."

So would we as protestants say Adam was righteous all by himself and did not need God to add this in his humanity to be good?

PS. I am not arguing just trying to understand because the above quote does appear to say Adam was good as God gave him the grace to be. I also will read your quotes carefully but this is why I love RC Sproul because he can takes concepts and explain them in Un George Will terms.

 

[Peairtach]

Adam fell in God's providence.

In God's providence he was tempted and he fell.

He was made holy but with the capability of falling into sin and he chose sin, in response to temptation from outside, when he didn't need to fall.

Precisely what goes on in the mind and heart of such a human being - and when they are tempted - is mysterious, since we have never been completely holy mutably or immutably, and we're only told about Adam's actions in the account we have.

We also find the temptations of Christ somewhat mysterious, since some people say almost without thinking, How could the temptation be ''real'' since Christ couldn't sin?, yet there are answers enough for them.

 

[toddpedlar]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Read what I've highlighted in the Roman Catholic view. You're saying the exact same thing with different words. You're viewing God's grace as a preservative to hold Adam's natural appetites in check. God leaves for a moment, grace is removed, and Adam decays into sin.

You're providing a great apology for the Roman Catholic view of the image of God in man. It's un-Biblical.

I assure you I am not doing this on purpose. I am only asking questions.

"According to them original righteousness did not belong to the nature of man in its integrity, but was something supernaturally added."

So would we as protestants say Adam was righteous all by himself and did not need God to add this in his humanity to be good?

That's exactly what protestants should say. Adam was perfectly righteous in his initial estate. This is what the statement Rich quoted from Berkhof says right at the outset. He was perfectly just and perfectly holy at his creation, and in perfect communion with God. There was no act of God that caused him to sin - he fell when he was tempted, not because God had removed anything from him, but because he was able to fell and chose sin. The fact that he was able to sin did NOT indicate that there was any failure in him in terms of his righteousness.

PS. I am not arguing just trying to understand because the above quote does appear to say Adam was good as God gave him the grace to be. I also will read your quotes carefully but this is why I love RC Sproul because he can takes concepts and explain them in Un George Will terms. [/QUOTE]

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I have yet another question: Do you think that after we have ascended into the heavenly places with our Lord and Saviour, we then will be granted by God to fully understand the fall of Adam and Lucifer? Also, Could you think of any good reasons why God would withhold this knowledge from us in this life?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Perhaps. The good reason I can think of is that God was not pleased to reveal it to us. Frankly, there are so many things that God has not condescended to reveal to us that I spend zero time worrying about it.

I realize that there are those who really like to speculate about such things. In fact, I think that's what most people think that real theologians do. Calvin knew better:

For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it. Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly declaring (Psa 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Perhaps. The good reason I can think of is that God was not pleased to reveal it to us. Frankly, there are so many things that God has not condescended to reveal to us that I spend zero time worrying about it.

I realize that there are those who really like to speculate about such things. In fact, I think that's what most people think that real theologians do. Calvin knew better:

For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it. Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly declaring (Psa 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.

Thank you for bearing with me all this time, dear Brother in Christ! A great obstacle I've struggled with many years has finally been removed! God has certainly been faithful to answer my prayers!

 

[Peairtach]

I have yet another question: Do you think that after we have ascended into the heavenly places with our Lord and Saviour, we then will be granted by God to fully understand the fall of Adam and Lucifer? Also, Could you think of any good reasons why God would withhold this knowledge from us in this life?

I'm sure we'll know many more things in the next world than we do now, though whether this is one of them hasn't been revealed.

We will not know everything because only God knows everything. Even Christ in His human nature doesn't know everything, although He now has access to all knowledge.

It can be part of our fallenness to desire to know things which we are not entitled to know or it can be healthy curiosity.

So when the woman 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,[fn, or to give insight] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6, ESV)

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I have yet another question: Do you think that after we have ascended into the heavenly places with our Lord and Saviour, we then will be granted by God to fully understand the fall of Adam and Lucifer? Also, Could you think of any good reasons why God would withhold this knowledge from us in this life?

I'm sure we'll know many more things in the next world than we do now, though whether this is one of them hasn't been revealed.

We will not know everything because only God knows everything. Even Christ in His human nature doesn't know everything, although He now has access to all knowledge.

It can be part of our fallenness to desire to know things which we are not entitled to know or it can be healthy curiosity.

So when the woman 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,[fn, or to give insight] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6, ESV)

I think you're absolutely right! I realize I do often seek knowledge and understanding for selfish, carnal use. We should always be careful to look at our motives in absolutely everything we do; If all things are not to be done for the glory of God alone, then God is not worthy of all the praise He can possibly get from us - and this is definitely not the case!