A Balanced Calvinism

[Luke2427]

No, that is a biblical truth!

You have assumed that we must DO something sinful to merit damnation. We do not have to DO anything, nor can we do anything, for it is not an act of sin that damns, but rather the fact that we are sinners.

To those above arguing about evil, know that evil is not "something" i.e., created, but rather the lack of something. Misunderstanding that concept leads to all sort of theological errors. "Nothing" cannot be an act of God, therefore evil, which is nothing, cannot be God's action.

I understand and principally agree with this Augustinian position.

But even so if dark and cold upon the earth is nothing but the retreat of the sun then such retreat CAUSED the dark and cold to be.

If there is darkness it is because God withdrew his light.

If there is sin it is because God withdrew his goodness.

God is still the ultimate cause.

This is a glorious truth! God has a plan for everything big and small that ever happens- both good and evil.

Has a woman been raped? OH! What a tragedy! But take heart oh abused one! God will judge the wicked deed performed by those dark hearted men; but your pain and suffering was not useless! God meant it for good! Your pain had a purpose! God ordained it in eternity past as part of his glorious plan! You have participated through your pain in the eternal and grand scheme of God whereby through your pain his glory will be made more manifest throughout the endless ages of eternity!

Edwards said it best. You owe it to yourself to read this:

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . . .

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

 

[percho]

No, that is a biblical truth!

You have assumed that we must DO something sinful to merit damnation. We do not have to DO anything, nor can we do anything, for it is not an act of sin that damns, but rather the fact that we are sinners.

To those above arguing about evil, know that evil is not "something" i.e., created, but rather the lack of something. Misunderstanding that concept leads to all sort of theological errors. "Nothing" cannot be an act of God, therefore evil, which is nothing, cannot be God's action.

No I believe it was appointed unto man once, to die. It is up to God to give the gift of life.

 

[webdog]

You have assumed that we must DO something sinful to merit damnation. We do not have to DO anything, nor can we do anything, for it is not an act of sin that damns, but rather the fact that we are sinners.

A sinner is defined as one who sins. If what you say is the truth, Adam and Eve didn't have to eat of the fruit as there was nothing done that lead to their spiritual death.

 

[The Archangel]

A sinner is defined as one who sins. If what you say is the truth, Adam and Eve didn't have to eat of the fruit as there was nothing done that lead to their spiritual death.

The problem in this line of thinking is that you are attributing the pre-fall state of Adam and Eve to the post-fall us.

Adam and Eve became sinners because they sinned. Everyone since Adam and Eve has had the nature of sin inherent in them because they are descendant from Adam. Christ did not have this nature because He had no human father.

Genesis 5 clearly states that we are in Adam's image and likeness (Genesis 9 affirms that we are also in God's image...but that's mostly a functional concept, not an inherent quality). Since we are "In Adam" we are "by nature children of wrath."

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

The problem in this line of thinking is that you are attributing the pre-fall state of Adam and Eve to the post-fall us.

Adam and Eve became sinners because they sinned. Everyone since Adam and Eve has had the nature of sin inherent in them because they are descendant from Adam. Christ did not have this nature because He had no human father.

Genesis 5 clearly states that we are in Adam's image and likeness (Genesis 9 affirms that we are also in God's image...but that's mostly a functional concept, not an inherent quality). Since we are "In Adam" we are "by nature children of wrath." I believe we become sinners in the same way Adam and Eve did.

The Archangel

I believe Genesis 5 is speaking of the fact that since the fall we have the nature Adam received during the fall, not that his guilt was passed on to us. We are by "nature" children of wrath, needing a new nature to keep us from this wrath.

 

[Robert Snow]

I would tremble in terror at the thought of such remarks were I you.

If I were you, I would tremble also, since your view of theology makes God responsible for sin, which is...

 

[The Archangel]

I believe Genesis 5 is speaking of the fact that since the fall we have the nature Adam received during the fall, not that his guilt was passed on to us. We are by "nature" children of wrath, needing a new nature to keep us from this wrath.

But Paul is likely thinking this or something similar when, in Romans, he writes that by one man sin came into the world and death through sin and in Adam all sinned.

Adam's sin is the reason people died between Adam and Moses--technically no "sin" could occur since there was no law (and Paul points this out: Sin is not counted where there is no Law). But, Paul says, people did die. Why did they die? Was if for their own sin? No. Because sin is not counted where there is no Law. So why did people die? Because, in some way, Adam's sin is passed on to all of us.

The Archangel

 

[percho]

But Paul is likely thinking this or something similar when, in Romans, he writes that by one man sin came into the world and death through sin and in Adam all sinned.

Adam's sin is the reason people died between Adam and Moses--technically no "sin" could occur since there was no law (and Paul points this out: Sin is not counted where there is no Law). But, Paul says, people did die. Why did they die? Was if for their own sin? No. Because sin is not counted where there is no Law. So why did people die? Because, in some way, Adam's sin is passed on to all of us.

The Archangel

Would Adam have physically died if there had been no sin. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden. If he fell in before sin and went to the bottom for an hour would he have died? Just when was it appointed to man once, to die. God did not say if you eat you but in the day that you eat dying thou will die. Was the appointment not made before his sin? After all in the mind of God the Lamb was already slain.

This is an interesting statement in light of Adam and sin and death.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

 

[The Archangel]

Would Adam have physically died if there had been no sin. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden. If he fell in before sin and went to the bottom for an hour would he have died? Just when was it appointed to man once, to die. God did not say if you eat you but in the day that you eat dying thou will die. Was the appointment not made before his sin? After all in the mind of God the Lamb was already slain.

This is an interesting statement in light of Adam and sin and death.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

I honestly don't know if Adam would have died "naturally." I don't think so, because death comes through sin and had he not sinned, there would be no reason for him to die.

However, it is possible that--to live for ever--Adam would have had to demonstrate constant and consistent obedience to God, which he obviously didn't do.

So, it is possible that Adam would not have inherent eternal life had he not sinned. But I think it more likely that Adam would have had a derived (from God) eternal life as a reward for his constant and consistent obedience to God.

The Archangel

 

[percho]

I honestly don't know if Adam would have died "naturally." I don't think so, because death comes through sin and had he not sinned, there would be no reason for him to die.

However, it is possible that--to live for ever--Adam would have had to demonstrate constant and consistent obedience to God, which he obviously didn't do.

So, it is possible that Adam would not have inherent eternal life had he not sinned. But I think it more likely that Adam would have had a derived (from God) eternal life as a reward for his constant and consistent obedience to God.

The Archangel

Well I can not see where he was created anything but flesh and blood which is corruptible. For in the day of thine eating, Thou shalt surely die. ASV. Dying thou dost die.YNG Most translations make it appear he would die the day he ate which he did not therefore creating a spiritual death concept. The literal would have him to be dead the day the spirit of the breath of life departed from him. It appears to me he was created a mortal corruptible being so that through death he could be protected from immortality in sin. How, by the Word being made flesh as he was dying for him paying his penalty for sin and through resurrection to life again it would destroy him that has the power of death, that is the devil. Then he would be abel to pass on that life to whom he will.

Just some thoughts for all to C H A R G E.

I'm retired and don't have a lot to do.

 

[Skandelon]

I know what your saying.

It would be "ridiculous" to believe that God would allow, in fact make it His will beforehand, a Father to give his only son, who was absolutely innocent, into the hands of murderous men. And for what, to save other men just as wicked.

So, you are equating God eternal plan of redemption through the birth, death and resurrection of His Son with God planning to determine Jeffry Dahmer's rapes, murders, torture and cannibalism? Really?

It's one thing for God to preordained and sovereignly intervene to ensure the plan of redemption for the world as the solution to sin and it is a WHOLE other thing to use that as a proof that God has somehow determined the sinners to sin. That is completely unfounded and brings reproach upon our God.

 

[Skandelon]

I didn't say that.

You said..."They believe that God rules in so much that he GIVES them choices, and is there overseeing the choices and is able to manipulate the outcome to suit His will, but they do not believe that what man chooses is up to God. It COULD be if God wanted it to be- but they believe that God has chosen to let men rule their choices; men govern their decisions; what men choose is up to THEM. That is not exhaustive sovereignty."

So, I interpreted that to mean God doesn't "give them choices" and God DOESN'T "let men rule their choices" or "govern their decisions" or that what they choose is not "up to THEM." Thus, God is the only one making any real choice, right?

Yes it was. The family can find consolation in the fact that God had a purpose for bringing this tragic event to pass.

Its one thing to say God allowed this tragic event, but to lay blame on God by saying He brought it to pass is clearly unbiblical.

To use special acts of divine intervention as biblical proof texts is not sufficient to support your case. For example, to quote a passage that points out that Paul was "set aside from birth" as a proof text that all believers are likewise "set aside" undermines the uniqueness of the apostles calling and the unique authority given to him. It's like pointing to the inspiration of scripture as a proof text that all christian writings are likewise inspired. You are doing that by pointing to some divine interventions throughout history and jumping to the conclusion that God intervenes in the same manner in every instance. This undermines those unique situations in which God is using evil to bring about a great good and makes a blanket claim that all sinful acts are God's determination, which is unfounded.

It was not purposeless and random. It will serve a great end.

The one who performed the wicked deed who did so out of some vile passions did it for evil.

But God meant it for good.

Certainly God can bring all things together for good and for His purpose, but this doesn't justify the idea that he causes the temptation and the sin itself. That is not a biblical concept.

No, pardon me, but it has nothing to do with the Bible. It is designed to do nothing but stir powerful emotions rather than to promote rational Scriptural truth.

It has to do with interpreting the biblical teaching on this subject...that is why we are discussing this, right?

There is nothing irrational about my statement or the passages I have provided for support. I think you just don't like where your dogma takes you when you allow it to be practically applied in the real world instead of just in your nice clean theological discussion board.

Think about it RATIONALLY and PRACTICALLY, in your system of belief you have God coming up with the idea of raping and torturing a little girl and then determining the temptation to come to pass and then determining the actual action of the individual who does this crime. Yes, its emotional because its real, unlike your theoretical theological ramblings about true sovereignty.

God has a purpose for everything- even evil.

Of course He does, but why does that mean that he has to be the cause or determiner of such evil?

God does not tempt men to evil but that does not mean that God does not will it to exist and that he does not ultimately bring it to pass.

Translation: God does not tempt men, but God does will temptation and bring it to pass.

Please explain how God goes about willing temptation and bringing it to pass without tempting?

 

[Luke2427]

You said..."They believe that God rules in so much that he GIVES them choices, and is there overseeing the choices and is able to manipulate the outcome to suit His will, but they do not believe that what man chooses is up to God. It COULD be if God wanted it to be- but they believe that God has chosen to let men rule their choices; men govern their decisions; what men choose is up to THEM. That is not exhaustive sovereignty."

So, I interpreted that to mean God doesn't "give them choices" and God DOESN'T "let men rule their choices" or "govern their decisions" or that what they choose is not "up to THEM." Thus, God is the only one making any real choice, right?

Its one thing to say God allowed this tragic event, but to lay blame on God by saying He brought it to pass is clearly unbiblical.

To use special acts of divine intervention as biblical proof texts is not sufficient to support your case. For example, to quote a passage that points out that Paul was "set aside from birth" as a proof text that all believers are likewise "set aside" undermines the uniqueness of the apostles calling and the unique authority given to him. It's like pointing to the inspiration of scripture as a proof text that all christian writings are likewise inspired. You are doing that by pointing to some divine interventions throughout history and jumping to the conclusion that God intervenes in the same manner in every instance. This undermines those unique situations in which God is using evil to bring about a great good and makes a blanket claim that all sinful acts are God's determination, which is unfounded.

Certainly God can bring all things together for good and for His purpose, but this doesn't justify the idea that he causes the temptation and the sin itself. That is not a biblical concept.

It has to do with interpreting the biblical teaching on this subject...that is why we are discussing this, right?

There is nothing irrational about my statement or the passages I have provided for support. I think you just don't like where your dogma takes you when you allow it to be practically applied in the real world instead of just in your nice clean theological discussion board.

Think about it RATIONALLY and PRACTICALLY, in your system of belief you have God coming up with the idea of raping and torturing a little girl and then determining the temptation to come to pass and then determining the actual action of the individual who does this crime. Yes, its emotional because its real, unlike your theoretical theological ramblings about true sovereignty.


Of course He does, but why does that mean that he has to be the cause or determiner of such evil?



Translation: God does not tempt men, but God does will temptation and bring it to pass.

Please explain how God goes about willing temptation and bringing it to pass without tempting?

I'll respond to this in a day or so.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

So, you are equating God eternal plan of redemption through the birth, death and resurrection of His Son with God planning to determine Jeffry Dahmer's rapes, murders, torture and cannibalism? Really?

It's one thing for God to preordained and sovereignly intervene to ensure the plan of redemption for the world as the solution to sin and it is a WHOLE other thing to use that as a proof that God has somehow determined the sinners to sin. That is completely unfounded and brings reproach upon our God.

No I am not. It was far worse, what those wicked hands did at Calvary.
These two events do not compare at all. There are major differences between the two.

Now let's look at the rest of your post.
What then is the alternative if God is not in complete control?

Are you saying that the wicked acts done by Dahmer have no purpose. That they where just senseless violence. That Dahmer's actions were totally independent of God's control. That God could not or would not prevent Dahmer from perpetrating his wicked acts.

You think you excuse God by man's free will, but do you really?

This is the problem with the free will system. God knows about wicked acts, such as Dahmer's, but either cannot or will not stop it.

If He cannot stop Dahmer, then this god is not sovereign and, frankly, is not God.
But on the other hand, if He will not stop Dahmer, then is God guilty of neglect, uncaring, no love, hate, blind eye, etc.?

Why did God, if He could, not stop this murderous fiend?
Is He so bound to man's will that he would not step in to prevent such an insidious act?

You might say, "ah, but He has a reason for not stepping in"
I ask you what is that reason?
You say, "I don't know, but God does and that is enough for me".


Now your on the right track. God knows, that is enough for me.

Go with me into eternity past, see and hear our God ruling on HIS sovereign throne; as He decrees for His purposes, in everything, to come to pass.

Now we have in God's determinations, not always a reason, but a purpose. And since He is absolute perfection, His purposes must be, praise God, will be perfect.

We look through a glass darkly? His ways are sometimes past finding out.

What if God were to reveal to us His purpose in Dahmer's wicked acts?

Is it not plausible that while Dahmer's name is gore-ified, that God's name is Glorified!

God's decrees have a purpose. God uses them to cry LOOK TO ME, LOOK TO ME!!!.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things....... 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

No wonder Paul said,

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"

36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

 

[Luke2427]

No I am not. It was far worse, what those wicked hands did at Calvary.
These two events do not compare at all. There are major differences between the two.

Now let's look at the rest of your post.
What then is the alternative if God is not in complete control?

Are you saying that the wicked acts done by Dahmer have no purpose. That they where just senseless violence. That Dahmer's actions were totally independent of God's control. That God could not or would not prevent Dahmer from perpetrating his wicked acts.

You think you excuse God by man's free will, but do you really?

This is the problem with the free will system. God knows about wicked acts, such as Dahmer's, but either cannot or will not stop it.

If He cannot stop Dahmer, then this god is not sovereign and, frankly, is not God.
But on the other hand, if He will not stop Dahmer, then is God guilty of neglect, uncaring, no love, hate, blind eye, etc.?

Why did God, if He could, not stop this murderous fiend?
Is He so bound to man's will that he would not step in to prevent such an insidious act?

You might say, "ah, but He has a reason for not stepping in"
I ask you what is that reason?
You say, "I don't know, but God does and that is enough for me".


Now your on the right track. God knows, that is enough for me.

Go with me into eternity past, see and hear our God ruling on HIS sovereign throne; as He decrees for His purposes, in everything, to come to pass.

Now we have in God's determinations, not always a reason, but a purpose. And since He is absolute perfection, His purposes must be, praise God, will be perfect.

We look through a glass darkly? His ways are sometimes past finding out.

What if God were to reveal to us His purpose in Dahmer's wicked acts?

Is it not plausible that while Dahmer's name is gore-ified, that God's name is Glorified!

God's decrees have a purpose. God uses them to cry LOOK TO ME, LOOK TO ME!!!.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things....... 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

No wonder Paul said,

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"

36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

This is EXCELLENT work, IMO. And I do not patronize.

This is a VERY solid argument.

I think it is sad when our brethren believe that God wishes things would not happen but not enough to stop them; and all the while billions of horrible things happen God wishes they would not happen has NO PURPOSE for them.

BILLIONS of horrible things happen every day that have NO purpose whatsoever in that system. God just allows them.

How sad.