I don't think I've posted on this before. I also believe God never intended sin to exist. I scanned your summary Tom on Jan 12 of Mike's position. If those are direct quotes I also see some trouble with them.

Mark, in the course of studying with Tom I have made strong statements to make a point. If you haven't read through this thread, from the beginning, then maybe you can answer this question:

Since sinning was not possible before the Godhead created free moral agents, and since They knew in advance that one third of the angels would choose to sin, and that Adam and Eve would also choose to sin, and since They chose to create these free moral agents in spite of these facts - Did the Godhead introduce a situation where sin and death were inevitable?

God, or They, created other beings, angels, etc. in spite of the eventual entrance of sin, not to bring about sin, but to bring about other free-willed beings with whom to fellowship with.

It's kind of hard to fellowship with a robot.

Mark: Yes, they are all direct quotes.

Daryl: Right. God created beings with free will, which includes the risk that they would use that free will to rebel against Him, which is unfortunately what happened.

Mike: The common way of referring to God is "He." In Portuguese, Catholics use the plural voice to address God, but Adventists do not. I would suspect that practice is common to other languages as well. In English the common way to refer to the Godhead is "He." Does Ellen White ever refer to God as "they"? I don't believe so. I'd certainly be interested in seeing an example of this. (I'd be shocked if there were such an example; she talks about the three persons of the Godhead - Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but to my knowledge never uses a plural pronoun to refer to God).

Admin people: Every other forum I attend has the "Preview" buton on the left, and the "Post" button on the right, which from time to time, when I don't make a conscious effort, leads me to make posts when I'm trying to review them. This is just an observation.

"The task is to discover the truth, and not to start with an allegation and then require others to prove it wrong."

Boblee said,

quote:

---

Actually, that procedure is very close to inductive logic on which most scientific knowledge is based. After data is recorded, a guess is made as to how the data should be interpreted. Then that interpretation is expanded to areas not yet known. Next new data is taken in the field of the expansion to see if the interpretation is correct. If not you start over. If so, you have the beginnings of new knowledge.

That procedure, called the scientific method, can be applied to learning scripture as well as to knowledge of the physical world. So Mike's statement is not as unreasonable as it sounds.

---

That is very true in respect to orphaned Science. They have no one to learn from, you see. And if that is the case we are all doomed, for it is written.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

But we are not orphans. Chist said Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Christ already came and disproved that allegation, with his life and death, and now he invites us to learn of him. He is the way, the truth, and the life. And from him we can learn it.

John,

Why did you say "orphaned Science?" Are you biased concerning the way God expects us to learn about what He created? When God said "come let us reason together" (Is 1:18), what do you think He meant? God started out our civilization by asking Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19). By your thinking, God should have informed Adam what the names of the animals were. Throughout scripture, God seems to want us to learn from experience, not by decree.

Actually, you changed the subject. God did indeed pass on information about various subjects. He still does through His Spirit (John 16:13-15). But He doesn't pass on information about every subject, even spiritual subjects. Also through various redactors and translators, what God meant by what He said is often obscure to us. It is through logic and reasoning (basically the same method scientists use to make sense of the universe) that we come to an understanding of what God was trying to tell us. We know, of course, that God gave Mrs. White illumination on many subjects which have guided the Adventist church through many difficulties. But are you aware that God never gave visions to her on any subject until she and others had studied the Bible (using methods like I was pointing out) until they felt they understood it thoroughly or could go no further?

So please don't denigrate the method God gave us for learning.

RL

I do not wish to derail this topic Boblee,

quote:

---

Are you biased concerning the way God expects us to learn about what He created? When God said "come let us reason together" (Is 1:18), what do you think He meant?

---

He meant that we should not be reasoning apart from him. It is this apart from him reasoning that makes our sins as scarlet, but reasoning with him makes us white as snow.
Psa 32:8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.
Psa 32:9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.

As far as Science, I think it is fairly commonly known that they have taken the basis that God does not exist (with a few exceptions).

But putting this topic back on track,

Mike's question. "Was sin or sinning possible before the Godhead created free moral agents?"

I would like to ask a counter-question

Did God create free moral agents with the possibility and ability to live without sin or sinning? Was it possible for created free moral agents to live without sinning?

I think this is a pertinent thought in this topic.

When God created man, Satan was not banished to this planet. He had full roam of heaven, only he had lost his position of covering cherub. On this planet he was not allowed anywhere but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The rest of the planet was under the dominion and authority of Man. After man fell then it was that Satan took the dominion and authority from man.

It was not until the cross that Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven and there was no more room found for him in heaven, but he had plenty of recipients here on earth.

John,

Thank you for your reasoned response. You had me worried for a moment. Back to the main subject, though, let me voice an opinion with some prelude:

You asked, "Was it possible for created free moral agents to live without sinning?" It seems that there are several opinions of what "sin" or "sinning" really is. Some have promoted the thought that "missing the mark" is sin. But isn't that the essence of all engineering work? You try something and see if it works. If not, try something else. Keep trying until you find what does work. Ideally, you learn from each experiment that not only leads to answers to the problem you are trying to solve, but leads to answers to related questions as well. When Edison, for instance, was accused of learning nothing from trying 500 materials with which to make light bulb filaments, he replied that he had learned a lot: he now knew of 500 materials which don't work!

Others have suggested that intangibles such as worry, procrastination, fear, anger, distrust, etc. constitute sin. But what does the Bible say about sin? There are two concepts to consider. First is the concept outlined in I John 5:13 ff which basically says there are two kinds of sin. One is unto death and the other one IS NOT unto death. In all the sermons, books, papers, and discussions I have encountered, I have never heard this concept discussed. It is interesting, and a lot more could be said about the two kinds of sin and the two kinds of law that I believe they represent.

However, the second concept seems to answer your question more succinctly. It is found in I John 3:4 which says "sin is lawlessness." Woops, did I hear you say, "that's not what the Bible says?" Herein, I believe is the big problem in our paradigm of salvation. If you go back to the original Greek of that text, you will find it should be translated as I quoted it. All modern translations use some version of "lawlessness" instead of "transgression of the law." Notice, transgression is something you do. An action, an activity, movement. Thus from King James mistranslation of this text, we commonly think of sin as wrongdoing. Or perhaps of thinking the wrong way or of the way we feel. But what of lawlessness? There are, perhaps, some elements of action, but the basis of lawlessness is our attitude. As Jesus said, hating is the real sin, not the murder and lusting is the basis of adultery. Notice that murder and adultery can be forgiven, but how do you pardon hatred or lust? Much can be said about this concept also including its relation to the first concept I mentioned, but let's see how your question fits into these concepts.

If we can agree that the sin which separates us from God is an attitude of rebellion or resistance or disobedience, we've greatly narrowed the question. Throughout scriptures I find God urging us to control our attitude, so I feel it must be possible. But that covers the rest of your question. Therefore it must be possible for created free moral agents to live without sinning? Furthermore, I believe it is also possible for us today to live out our lives without sinning.

RL