• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Another question for Calvinists

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Luke2427

Active Member
quantumfaith said:
Agreed, sort of. But why not create without the potentiality of sin, the "reformed" proponent argues it is for God's glory, the non-reformed argues it is for creation to have some degree of free will (not libertarian). Is this an accurate reflection of the divide?
Click to expand...

This is it, IMO.

Ephesians 2 tells us why God ordained that evil be: "That in the ages to come he might show forth the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus..."

Romans 5:8 verifies this- "But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

God SHOWS his love----- How?

By LOVING SINNERS.

There is no showing of this kind of love without sin.
 
StefanM

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
quantumfaith said:
Agreed, sort of. But why not create without the potentiality of sin, the "reformed" proponent argues it is for God's glory, the non-reformed argues it is for creation to have some degree of free will (not libertarian). Is this an accurate reflection of the divide?
Click to expand...

I think so, in general. IMO, the non-reformed perspectives that make this argument are stretching. I don't see biblical justification to make free will as the ultimate purpose of God's permitting of the fall.

The reformed position seems somewhat vague, though. In essence, either position could be represented by the claim that God permitted the fall for his glory. In the non-reformed perspective, the claim would be that a world with free will ultimately glorifies God more than a world without it.

I don't have an answer for the question. I simply have no idea why God permitted the fall. I know that there had to be a good reason (or God would not have allowed it). I just don't have any idea what that reason is.
 
A

Amy.G

New Member
StefanM said:
I think so, in general. IMO, the non-reformed perspectives that make this argument are stretching. I don't see biblical justification to make free will as the ultimate purpose of God's permitting of the fall.

The reformed position seems somewhat vague, though. In essence, either position could be represented by the claim that God permitted the fall for his glory. In the non-reformed perspective, the claim would be that a world with free will ultimately glorifies God more than a world without it.

I don't have an answer for the question. I simply have no idea why God permitted the fall. I know that there had to be a good reason (or God would not have allowed it). I just don't have any idea what that reason is.
Click to expand...

My own personal belief is that God desires for His creation (humans) to love Him. There cannot be love without free will to reject Him as well. In the end, when God judges mankind, He will have a family of children that genuinely love Him.
 
StefanM

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Luke2427 said:
This is it, IMO.

Ephesians 2 tells us why God ordained that evil be: "That in the ages to come he might show forth the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus..."

Romans 5:8 verifies this- "But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

God SHOWS his love----- How?

By LOVING SINNERS.

There is no showing of this kind of love without sin.
Click to expand...

This only partially answers the question (why God would allow sin for those he would redeem).

It does not, however, address why God would allow sin for those ultimately to be condemned.
 
StefanM

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Amy.G said:
My own personal belief is that God desires for His creation (humans) to love Him. There cannot be love without free will to reject Him as well. In the end, when God judges mankind, He will have a family of children that genuinely love Him.
Click to expand...

But will we be able to love him in heaven, then?
 
Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
Luke2427 said:
This is it, IMO.

Ephesians 2 tells us why God ordained that evil be: "That in the ages to come he might show forth the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus..."

Romans 5:8 verifies this- "But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

God SHOWS his love----- How?

By LOVING SINNERS.

There is no showing of this kind of love without sin.
Click to expand...

Luke, respectfully so, I do not agree with your conclusion that Love of God is not possible without sin. I do agree, His love for us "while we were yet sinners" is an ultimate expression of love though.

Sin and evil is the existence we find ourselves in, but I do not think it was a necessity. If I remember correctly, C.S. Lewis argued that if other created beings existed in other worlds, they need not necessarily have fallen as did we. Unfortunately I cannot remember the particulars of his argument, in "Mere Christianity" I believe.
 
W

Winman

Active Member
Cals/DoGs often say God could have made man without the ability to sin. I believe this a fallacy. Where is scripture to support this?
 
G

glfredrick

New Member
Winman said:
Cals/DoGs often say God could have made man without the ability to sin. I believe this a fallacy. Where is scripture to support this?
Click to expand...

And where is the Scriptural evidence that He could not?

We seem to be in a dilemma here, where all parties are arguing "logic" instead of Scripture.

You do understand the intentional fallacy of "begging the question" and of an "argument from silence," right?

Perhaps not. Here are definitions just in case:

Fallacy: Begging the Question Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the QuestionBegging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
Click to expand...


Argument from Silence

Argument from Silence is an informal logical fallacy where a positive conclusion is drawn from someone's silence.

For example, if one's opponent in a debate does not respond to an argument, it would be a fallacy to conclude that he or she cannot counter the argument. Especially on web forums, this is a fallacy because there are many other reasons why a particular respondent might not want or be able to respond. Reasons include hardware failure, scheduling, or a simple lack of desire to continue an obviously fruitless discussion. Another example of an argument from silence is concluding that a speaker or writer must be ignorant of something if he or she is silent about it.

Examples

Antagonist: And we can see how space aliens have so thoroughly taken over our economy by the fact that ice is heavier than liquid water.
<long period of non-response>
Antagonist : Obviously, no one can rebut my claim about space aliens!
Click to expand...
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
Wow. I will tell you this. These free willers sure are teaching me why I left IFB. They don't believe God is able to do too much, and certainly say that He is limited in ability. I never knew such bunk. Thanks to winman for declaring what he feels about God's inabilities.
 
W

Winman

Active Member
preacher4truth said:
Wow. I will tell you this. These free willers sure are teaching me why I left IFB. They don't believe God is able to do too much, and certainly say that He is limited in ability. I never knew such bunk. Thanks to winman for declaring what he feels about God's inabilities.
Click to expand...

Well, then explain why God did not make us without the ability to sin.
 
C

charles_creech78

New Member
preacher4truth said:
Wow. I will tell you this. These free willers sure are teaching me why I left IFB. They don't believe God is able to do too much, and certainly say that He is limited in ability. I never knew such bunk. Thanks to winman for declaring what he feels about God's inabilities.
Click to expand...

Amen amen amen!!!!! Its just amazing how man thinks that he knows what God can do and can't do!
 
W

Winman

Active Member
Two of the lamest non-answers I've ever heard.

Hey, it's you guys that constantly claim God could have made men without the ability to sin. Please explain how he could have done that.
 
P

preacher4truth

Active Member
Winman said:
Two of the lamest non-answers I've ever heard.

Hey, it's you guys that constantly claim God could have made men without the ability to sin. Please explain how he could have done that.
Click to expand...

Answers? See, you can't grasp context even when it is plain.

That wasn't an answer, it was a rejection concerning engaging with you in your hypothesis.

Let me reiterate: You can't see plain truth, you twist, and misinterpret plain truth and Scripture. I won't then engage in hypothesis with you for those reasons. Thus, this is not an answer to your questions.

You have taught me afresh why I am not any longer IFB. You limit God to your understanding, and limit Him in capability because He cannot possibly do something if you don't believe He can.

That right there is enough to cut you off. You've been warned plenty.

I turn to Titus 3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top