I am not sure I understand you… Would you describe a parent’s relationship with a child that way? Have they created something flawed which needs to be fixed? Certainly that is not how most parents I have known think, and I cannot imagine those thinking that way would be good parents.
He created something that was not impervious to being damaged and that something more beautiful would replace it?
I could agree with the idea of creation being ‘very good’, not perfect only because I don’t believe in many notions of “perfect.” The only “perfect” I do believe in such as when Jesus said “you must be perfect,” is being without sin. That is because sin is destructive of all that is good. And I certainly do not agree that God created the world with sin.
I do not not believe the fall was necessary for a better world. I will never believe evil can be an improvement or building block for a better world. The possibility of evil is another matter. Without that possibility there can be no real love. Love must be a choice and thus there must be the possibility that love and the life which is offered can be rejected. But that is what leads to evil.
One can certainly argue that wherever there is life there is the possibility of evil and thus with abundant life it is inevitable there will be evil. But when you start a family and give gifts to your children your expectation is for goodness and not that they will be used for evil and self-destruction. The possibility may be unavoidable but it is certainly not planned. And such a plan is NOT what we see in the story of the Bible, where God’s reaction to the evil of mankind was regret that He created us at all.
The flaw in this is that the principle love involved is the love of God for us. Whatever love we have for God is but a miniscule reflection of that.
There is no way to magnify God and certainly nothing we do is going to accomplish such a thing. I definitely see this sort of dogma as the creation of religious people to magnify themselves and their own religious profession.
His purpose was a relationship between Himself, an infinite actuality, and His children, with infinite potentiality, so that there would be no end to what God has to give and no end to what we could receive from Him. This is the meaning of eternal life. In this there is no room for the self-destructive habits of sin, for these damage our potential and block our ability to receive anything from God. So yes God certainly did intend to create a world without sin which is the only meaningful understanding I can see in the word “perfect.”
He did create a world without sin, but any world in which sin can enter is not perfect!
No, of course not, literally. Surely you are aware that is not the only meaning of the word.
What did Mary say?:
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord
Luke 1:46
Much music has been written about it. Maybe you’ve heard of the Magnificat? (If not, you’re more provincial than I am! 
)
I do not believe that God’s goal is to create a world (New Earth) without any freedom of will. And I wouldn’t call such a world perfect either. So that definition of perfect doesn’t work for me either.
Nor do I think the “new Earth” means a world without children for whom sin will always be possibility. I think the “new Earth” more likely means a world where sin and evil isn’t such a dominant force and power – a world where sin is understood for what it is (self-destructive) and thus overcome much more quickly.
That seems to mean Mary praises the Lord. And no I don’t think God created us in order to praised by us. Our praise for God is for our benefit.
My unfamiliarity is more about not being raised in a Christian culture let alone a Catholic one.
Yes, I refuse to participate in the delusion that so many have that they speak for God Himself.
Something that you learn in Freshman Comp that you have apparently forgotten is that you do not need to keep repeating “I think”, “I believe”, “It’s my opinion”, etc etc. Of course it’s your opinion or whatever – it’s your voice! (It also weakens your argument in public speaking or debate.)
Try thinking about it this way: when your will is subsumed by love, you cannot sin. It’s got nothing to do with losing your free will! (Mine isn’t there yet, you might have noticed.)
We are are in agreement. Darkness, chaos, void was a necessary essential precondition for creation.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance define them as: “From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness. From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void. The dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, Destruction, Death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: darkness, Night, Obscurity.”
We can agree on negative state yes? also No word creation? yes ?
I am wondering…how is this any different from Theistic Evolution?
The entire problem with any reconciliation here is that it has the exact same theological problems. If one takes a wholistic theological approach to the consistency of biblical self revelation in its interpretation (across all of the Bible), it is impossible to marry the two together. This is also unfortunately why it is that there are very few Christian denominations that actually are true Christian churches.
The vast majority of Christian churches do no follow the bible properly…particularly when it comes to the 4th Commandment. As soon as that commandment is thrown out the window, there is room for theistic evolution to intermarry with true Christianity. This is because Exodus 20:8-11 becomes irrelevant to the problem TEism faces because its already been explained away by another false doctrine found in the majority of Christian churches (ie Sunday worship)
Exodus 20:8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
No there is not…there is no biblical passage anywhere in the Bible where you will find God actively promoting Sunday worship. here are the key tests of this doctrine:
- God Rested on the Sabbath
- God blessed the Sabbath
- God Sanctified the Sabbath
Please show me a biblical passage that supports God doing any of the above to Sunday worship? Also, I am a former high school teacher. Teachers normally teach what they wish their students to put into practice in life. Given the nature of teaching, show me an example where our teacher (Christ) teaches us to worship on Sunday?
EDIT,
your article is wrong about the only commandment of the ten being called a covenant BTW.
It’s about God’s heart, not proof texts.
oh i see…so you now have your own bible based on how apparently you view Gods heart. Im rather suprised at that because here is what the prophet samuel said to king Saul in that regard
1Sam 15:10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.”
22But Samuel declared:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obedience to His voice?
Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice,
and attentiveness is better than the fat of rams.
You cannot distinguish between the kind of rest God took in Genesis 2:2 and the one he took on the first day of the week after his bloody sweat in Gethsemane?
The essence of privation is the removal of Gods power. ( I think we all agree with this definition? ) Gods self removal creates what we see here as first state for the creation. Next Gods Goodness (word) begins to form, or like you said paint on this canvas turning it from negative state to progression toward goodness. God does not nor cannot call Gen 1v1,2 “good”. as he cannot lie. Goodness starts in vs 3 “let there be light” like calling Lazarus from the tomb.
I’m thinking in a new way that makes more sense of the text, and our observations of the universe. Also it reads the text as gospel truth, death to life which is a powerful apologetic and evangelistic tool rather than arguing about age of earth, creation order as provable scientific fact etc.
Why I believe it needs to be negative as first state? God Is ontologically absolute or actually Infinite. No space in God (no room). God glory is ALL IN ALL. For God to create anything He has to create first space within Himself, a self removal to accommodate anything at all. This can only be the death of Christ. Gods self removal is the first cause or universal necessity for creation.
This is the ontological problem I was referring to earlier. We have two things needing to be justified.
- our existence within a actual infinite God of Glory (spatial dilemma caused by Gods maximal glory)
So it shall be, while My Glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my hand…(Exodus 33:22) Why? because Gods glory is absolute and by definition should annihilate all but Himself (lots of texts for this).
This cleft God creates is space (heavens) itself… I mean outer space, dark, entropic and desolate. It defines God as Holy and separate from the creation. And the creation is In God. Like a baby in the womb the creation is in, dependent and separate as being.
- our moral condition (well developed atonement theology)
I’m suggesting In Christ’s work we have a ontological universal justification for all things to exist within the actual and also a particular moral justification for the elect. The body (ontological) and blood (atonement), The body contains the blood. The universal contains the particular. Paul said “we all sin AND fall short of his glory”. I’m suggesting these are two separate issues both solved by Christ’s work.
Maybe it’s pervasive commerce on the Lord’s Day. But there’s no arguing with a flaming SDA.