A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

[webdog]

Really?!

You state "DHK did seem to instigate." Now, the last time I checked, instigate meant to "initiate."

So, why are you accusing me of breaking the civility when you claim that DHK instigated? Should not your accusation be leveled at him?

My reply showed blame on both parts. It was asked for vitriolic posts to be brought to attention on this thread, and I was abiding by the wishes of the OP.

Further you assume that the statement about the sloppy handling of scripture is a false accusation. As I pointed out, the "narrator's" words were clearly missed or discounted. Therefore, it is an observation, not a false accusation.

Actually I was referring to "your lack of respect for the Scripture" which you conveniently left off.

It would seem that you are the leader of the "Anti-Archangel" club in that you only seem to see presupposed errors, lack of civility, etc. on my part whilst not addressing the very person or persons you admit are the "instigators."

Your "observation" is false.

Your observation is as inaccurate as it is unfair. That you would break into an otherwise civil discussion to accuse me of something that you clearly state I did not instigate is interesting. It shows upon which side your bread is buttered.

I didn't "break in", I was addressing the wishes of the originator of the OP...and I was involved in it before you even arrived.

Carry on...

 

[glfredrick]

The though "I will ascend into heaven" was both original to Satan and ordained by God.

It is not either or. It is both/and. Yes this is a paradox. But, as are so many things in the Bible, there is more than just one level going on here.

The Archangel

I would suggest the term antinomy instead of paradox, though God's sovereign actions can appear paradoxical to we limited humans.

Somewhere at the edges of infinity (that is God) all these seemingly parallel tracks come together at the throne seat of God Himself. Our perspective is too limited to see anything other than parallel tracks for some of the true mysteries of Scripture, such as the Trinity, and God's utter sovereignty will yet allowing some aspect of limited expression of will, but the tracks do converge at God -- they have to.

 

[mets65]

In years past I've spent my fair share of time in places I shouldn't have, and I can tell you there was more respect and love for each other in those places then here. It's really not even close.

 

[quantumfaith]

I have to say that your lack of respect for the scripture and your sloppy handling of it here is staggering.

You are missing, perhaps purposefully, the inspired words of the "narrator." Certainly God gives Satan permission, certainly God removes His hand of protection from Job, and certainly Satan afflicts Job.

But, again Job's words in both these cases are instructive: The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord and Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?

Now, you are correct, these are Job's words. But this is not merely "Job's perception" which may or may not be flawed. Job's perception is accurate--it is God (ultimately) who is responsible for these afflictions. The inspired narrator says (in both cases after Job states his perception): In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong and In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job clearly says that God is responsible. The narrator clearly states that Job is right. The narrator, further, goes on to say that Job did not sin or charge God with wrong by saying that God is the cause of this.

Your handling of this text is hopelessly flawed because you are not taking the text--all the text--into consideration.



I never said God created evil. I never said He created evil for job. I never attribute evil to God.

Now be careful here Mr. Moderator. You are engaging in "smear" tactics that are absolutely unbecoming of a moderator--but then again you usually only moderate the Calvinists and let the non-Calvinists run wild.
All I have said is that Job attributes the various calamities he has experienced to God and the inspired narrator has confirmed Job's words. Therefore, God is ultimately responsible for what has befallen Job.



This is laughable--in one sentence you state "Nothing good comes from a terrorist" and then, later, you quote scripture saying "All things work together for them that love him, for them that are called according to his purpose" (especially because as you've already stated in other places, wrongly I might add, "all means all").

This is a clear contradiction and you simply cannot have this both ways. If "all" things work together for good (as you seem to affirm), then it must be the case that evil is one of the "all things" that works together for good--including the attacks on NYC.

You are clearly denying the principle that we find in Genesis 50--that even the free and sinful actions of human beings ultimately serve God's greater purposes.

Also, again, it is very infantile for you, as a moderator, to even suggest that I was even remotely in favor of the terrorist attacks. I think you are beginning to level false charges against be because you are coming to the end of the well in this discussion and you are resorting to insults and false accusations and directing them at me, rather than dealing with the texts presented in a truly exegetical fashion. Again, something we'd expect from some other members here, but certainly not from a moderator.



You have a hopelessly wrong idea of the difference between fatalism and the Calvinist position. The greatest thing that absolutely disproves that we, Calvinists, are fatalists is that we pray. A true fatalist would never pray--and Calvinists are known for prayer. We do, in fact, pray for people to be healed from sickness, for very hardened persons to come to Christ, for people (and individuals) in general to come to Christ. So, the charge that we are fatalists is patently false.

A further difference in fatalism and Calvinism, as I've explained elsewhere, is that fatalism is generally based on an impersonal force--"fate." We do not hold God to be impersonal. We believe that God ordains both the means and the end so that when we pray for the salvation of "Fred," God has ordained that we pray for Fred so that He can answer that prayer bringing Fred to Christ.

So, again, as a moderator, you need to be careful with your false accusations that you bring to the discussion over and over and over again--especially because it has been explained to you that it is a false accusation on our part. But, like a one-trick-pony, it seems it is all you can think of to say in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So much for the "civil discussion." Who would have thought that it'd be a moderator who is leveling false accusations and ad hominem arguments. Very unfortunate.

The Archangel

This is not completely accurate, as I have been "moderated" by DHK in the past on other threads, and I certainly fall within the Non-Cal camp.

 

[Skandelon]

The ball rolling analogy and what I am saying are not similar.

Can you explain why? Is not his "turning off the light" so that certain effects happen in that darkness similar to starting a ball rolling? Or the sun setting? All of them focus on God doing something in the beginning (set the sun, turn off light, push the ball) and then the effect of that act leads to other things. Why are those different?

God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

That is what I am saying. He is the permitter and disposer of events so that sin will most certainly follow

I'm not sure what all Edwards intend to convey here, but I don't know that I have a problem with this statement, or what you have said either.

It appears as if he is saying that God has permitted sin, foreknows it will occur (because he permitted it and foreknows it), and thus it will certainly happen the way he has permitted and foreseen. Would that be an accurate interpretation of Edwards?

If not, please explain.

If so, I agree with him. Notice that what God foreknows and permits he did NOT originate. He did not come up with the idea of child molestation (for example) in Edwards explanation. He simply knew of such evil and permitted it in such as way that he knew it would certainly and infallibly follow. I don't know any "true Arminian" who would disagree with that explanation.

It IS compatabalism, nonetheless.

There may be components of compatabalistic elements, but I assure you this belief is not unique to Calvinism or even compatabalism. Even indeterminists acknowledge God's LFW and thus his ability to choose to intervene to affect and influence the change of man's will. For example, look at Jonah. His will if left alone was NOT to preach in Nineveh (a desire God determined in your system). God intervened through the use of a storm, some sailors and a big fish to persuade Jonah to change his mind (which in your system would be God intervening to change the desire he had determined to be in first place).

See? True compatablism would have God causally determining Jonah's will to rebel against God's call to preach, then it would have God causally determining Jonah's will to submit to God's call to preach, making God the only real agent in this story. That is not what we believe. We affirm Jonah's LFW and that he freely decided to rebel against God and that God used normative (outward) means to persuade him to do otherwise. That is not true compatablism. Understand?

God allowing or permitting is not in the text except that if ANYTHING is to happen God must allow it and permit it. No. What is in the text is God decreeing it, ordaining it.

See, this is confusing to me because you have not defined the terms "decree" and "ordain." With the explanation of Edwards above it would appear that you take "ordain/decree" to mean God foreknows evil, permits evil so that it will certainly come to pass. If that is the case then we have found common ground and you may need to change how you word certain things so as not to confuse the idea of God originating an evil intent.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is not completely accurate, as I have been "moderated" by DHK in the past on other threads, and I certainly fall within the Non-Cal camp.

Out of curiosity (& note I didnt read this entire thread) why did you select RC Sproul Jr?

 

[Skandelon]

As the author of this thread, may I respectfully request that any personal issues or disagreements be handled through PMs or by starting another thread? As requested in the OP we would like to keep this discussion civil and on subject if at all possible. God Bless and thank you! :godisgood:

 

[glfredrick]

I've just finished reading this entire thread. I've made a few comments on certain posts and so far the debate is going fairly well (at least until the same old diversionary tactics began).

I'm seeing that it will probably be impossible to answer the OP -- the origin of sin. Not for lack of trying, for sure, but that we are not told in any specific way by God's revelation, and anything else we come up with will be mere human speculation on this issue. Grounded in solid biblical theology (sometimes...) and based in what we know from Scripture, sure, but a definitive answer? Probably not going to find one, and we're not alone. Neither has the entire Church for 2000 years. That is not a cop out, just the reality of dealing with a subject that God has obviously placed "off-limits" for His own reasons. We run the risk of inventing a new religion when we speculate apart from direct or hermeneutically-derived implications driven by the revealed text.

Next, I note that the God of free will is a very small God indeed. He is a God who cannot possibly have the capacity to truly know all things, and decree all things in accordance with His divine will. He seemingly cannot direct every atom in the universe, and He needs to first "see" the actions of His creatures before He can decree what comes next. I find this a very slippery slope that ultimately leads to either universalism or Pelagianism. Every press for the cause of human free will is a press, in fact, against God. Even the argument that God acts on what He sees is a weakening of one's position on God.

While I wrestle with the concepts of the interaction between human will and God's sovereignty, at the end of the day, I'll join (willingly) the crowd that says, "Let God be true and every man a liar..." If I have to "come down on a side..." I'll come down on the side that most magnifies God, for as sinful creatures it is our nature to constantly and continually work to rebel against Holy God and in that rebellion to continue in the practice of sin offered to Eve, "that we can be like God, knowing good and evil..." That clearly was not God's intent from the start, and it was only the advent of sin -- however instigated -- that has caused us to now argue against a position of God's utter sovereignty.

 

[quantumfaith]

Out of curiosity (& note I didnt read this entire thread) why did you select RC Sproul Jr?

....I didnt. He was quoted extensively in Kenneth Keathley's book, Salvation and Sovereignty.

 

[quantumfaith]

As the author of this thread, may I respectfully request that any personal issues or disagreements be handled through PMs or by starting another thread? As requested in the OP we would like to keep this discussion civil and on subject if at all possible. God Bless and thank you! :godisgood:

Sorry, Skan will do.

 

[Skandelon]

I've just finished reading this entire thread. I've made a few comments on certain posts and so far the debate is going fairly well (at least until the same old diversionary tactics began).

I'm seeing that it will probably be impossible to answer the OP -- the origin of sin. Not for lack of trying, for sure, but that we are not told in any specific way by God's revelation, and anything else we come up with will be mere human speculation on this issue. Grounded in solid biblical theology (sometimes...) and based in what we know from Scripture, sure, but a definitive answer? Probably not going to find one, and we're not alone. Neither has the entire Church for 2000 years. That is not a cop out, just the reality of dealing with a subject that God has obviously placed "off-limits" for His own reasons. We run the risk of inventing a new religion when we speculate apart from direct or hermeneutically-derived implications driven by the revealed text.

Next, I note that the God of free will is a very small God indeed. He is a God who cannot possibly have the capacity to truly know all things, and decree all things in accordance with His divine will.

AWWW, you were doing so well until you got to these last 2 lines and then you completely contradicted everything you just said.

How would it make you feel if I said, "the God of Calvinism is a very small God indeed. He is a God who feels as if he must completely dictate everyones thoughts and acts in order to accomplish his purposes, whereas a truly great God would be able to accomplish his purposes in, through and despite the free acts of man's rebellion."

Every press for the cause of human free will is a press, in fact, against God.

Kind of begging the question here aren't we? If God CHOSE to create men with free will then it wouldn't be "against God," now would it?

Even the argument that God acts on what He sees is a weakening of one's position on God.

Yet, that does seem to be what Edwards argues in Luke's post regarding God permitting evil, don't you think?

The alternative is God originating the sinful thought and intents of man. Is that better?

While I wrestle with the concepts of the interaction between human will and God's sovereignty, at the end of the day, I'll join (willingly) the crowd that says, "Let God be true and every man a liar..." If I have to "come down on a side..." I'll come down on the side that most magnifies God, for as sinful creatures it is our nature to constantly and continually work to rebel against Holy God and in that rebellion to continue in the practice of sin offered to Eve, "that we can be like God, knowing good and evil..." That clearly was not God's intent from the start, and it was only the advent of sin -- however instigated -- that has caused us to now argue against a position of God's utter sovereignty.

I agree. I just happen to think it is much more "sovereign" for God to win despite man's free acts of rebellion rather than God playing both sides of the board and being equally in control of their rebellion as he is His response of mercy.

I guess when I think of sovereignty I think of a Army General so knowledgeable and powerful he is able to orchestrate a war in such a way to ensure victory despite the pitfalls, enemy and evil that comes. To me Calvinism gives more the impression of a kid playing with his plastic green army men controlling every thought and action and determining all they do in order to ensure his victory. I guess it is just perspective?

 

[convicted1]

Bro. GLF quoted this:

I'm seeing that it will probably be impossible to answer the OP -- the origin of sin. Not for lack of trying, for sure, but that we are not told in any specific way by God's revelation, and anything else we come up with will be mere human speculation on this issue. Grounded in solid biblical theology (sometimes...) and based in what we know from Scripture, sure, but a definitive answer? Probably not going to find one, and we're not alone. Neither has the entire Church for 2000 years. That is not a cop out, just the reality of dealing with a subject that God has obviously placed "off-limits" for His own reasons. We run the risk of inventing a new religion when we speculate apart from direct or hermeneutically-derived implications driven by the revealed text.

Please don't take anything I post as being snippy, rude, boastful, boistrous, etc. I don't see where the "impossibilty" of the originator of sin is. It lays solely on Lucifer. According to His Word, Lucifer was made good, until iniquity was found in him.....Ezek 28:15. In Isaiah 14, we see where his pride makes him want to exhalt himself above God, and he was thrown down. In Prov. 16 it says that pride goeth before the fall(I am paraphrasing here). Lucifer is the one who sinned first, or at least that's the way I see it. I do not find in His Record, where his arm was twisted, where he had outside influence, was coerced, etc. He chose to rebel against God, and in this rebellion,a third of the angels fell with him...Rev. 12.

Next, I note that the God of free will is a very small God indeed. He is a God who cannot possibly have the capacity to truly know all things, and decree all things in accordance with His divine will. He seemingly cannot direct every atom in the universe, and He needs to first "see" the actions of His creatures before He can decree what comes next. I find this a very slippery slope that ultimately leads to either universalism or Pelagianism. Every press for the cause of human free will is a press, in fact, against God. Even the argument that God acts on what He sees is a weakening of one's position on God.

Brother, how does a God of "free will" weaken His stature and/or status?? He IS God, and can go ANY route He chooses, or decrees. I never have found any scripture that will support "hell" until after Lucifer rebelled with a third of the angels in heaven. It was after their rebellion, that hell was created....or at least I think this is the case. If not, show me where I am wrong, and I will apologize for my mistake. Just because God allowed Lucifer to rebel, doesn't make Him not in control. He could have stopped Lucifer from what he did, but He didn't,for whatever reason, only He knows. He chose to allow the rebellion to take place, plain and simple.

While I wrestle with the concepts of the interaction between human will and God's sovereignty, at the end of the day, I'll join (willingly) the crowd that says, "Let God be true and every man a liar..." If I have to "come down on a side..." I'll come down on the side that most magnifies God, for as sinful creatures it is our nature to constantly and continually work to rebel against Holy God and in that rebellion to continue in the practice of sin offered to Eve, "that we can be like God, knowing good and evil..." That clearly was not God's intent from the start, and it was only the advent of sin -- however instigated -- that has caused us to now argue against a position of God's utter sovereignty.

That which I bolded, I will say a hearty AMEN!! :thumbs: I, too, will magnify God for what He did for me! What He did, no man could do, and that was save my soul!! Just because I believe in FW doesn't mean I believe in a "non-sovereign" God, because He is sovereign in that He gave us two destinations in which to choose from. When He calls, if we reject Him until the day we die, He controls our destination, hell. When He calls, and if we accept His free gift of salvation, He controls that destination, too....heaven. God is so sovereign, that when we were sinners out tromping down His "tender hand of mercy", He still had to give us our breath to do all our evil deeds. Now that IS sovereign!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Luke2427]

Can you explain why? Is not his "turning off the light" so that certain effects happen in that darkness similar to starting a ball rolling? Or the sun setting? All of them focus on God doing something in the beginning (set the sun, turn off light, push the ball) and then the effect of that act leads to other things. Why are those different?

Darkness and cold are not created things.

They are not the result of momentum. They are nothing but the absence of something but they are directly causes by the removal of that something.

I'm not sure what all Edwards intend to convey here, but I don't know that I have a problem with this statement, or what you have said either.

It appears as if he is saying that God has permitted sin, foreknows it will occur (because he permitted it and foreknows it), and thus it will certainly happen the way he has permitted and foreseen. Would that be an accurate interpretation of Edwards?

If not, please explain.

What you are missing is that permission and allowance is only part of a whole in his thinking. The other part is God DISPOSING those events SO THAT evil WILL most CERTAINLY follow.

If so, I agree with him. Notice that what God foreknows and permits he did NOT originate. He did not come up with the idea of child molestation (for example) in Edwards explanation. He simply knew of such evil and permitted it in such as way that he knew it would certainly and infallibly follow. I don't know any "true Arminian" who would disagree with that explanation.

Yes. Well I hope you are successful in turning some of these with nameless theologies who will NOT turn to the DoG into Arminians. They'd be a lot better off.

There may be components of compatabalistic elements, but I assure you this belief is not unique to Calvinism or even compatabalism. Even indeterminists acknowledge God's LFW and thus his ability to choose to intervene to affect and influence the change of man's will. For example, look at Jonah. His will if left alone was NOT to preach in Nineveh (a desire God determined in your system). God intervened through the use of a storm, some sailors and a big fish to persuade Jonah to change his mind (which in your system would be God intervening to change the desire he had determined to be in first place).

See? True compatablism would have God causally determining Jonah's will to rebel against God's call to preach, then it would have God causally determining Jonah's will to submit to God's call to preach, making God the only real agent in this story. That is not what we believe. We affirm Jonah's LFW and that he freely decided to rebel against God and that God used normative (outward) means to persuade him to do otherwise. That is not true compatablism. Understand?

No. True compatabalism simply states that the one deed is performed by both the human agent and God but with totally different motives.

The Bible is clear that God wills for evil to come to pass- but his motive for its existence is grand and noble. Those who perform it immediately have evil motives.
The Bible is packed with such illustrations.

See, this is confusing to me because you have not defined the terms "decree" and "ordain." With the explanation of Edwards above it would appear that you take "ordain/decree" to mean God foreknows evil, permits evil so that it will certainly come to pass. If that is the case then we have found common ground and you may need to change how you word certain things so as not to confuse the idea of God originating an evil intent.

I think I addressed this sufficiently above.

 

[webdog]

Darkness and cold are not created things.

They are not the result of momentum. They are nothing but the absence of something but they are directly causes by the removal of that something.

Actually, the very same thing can be said of light and heat. Darkness is created when light is removed, darkness is removed when light is added. My refrigerator creates cold.

Yes. Well I hope you are successful in turning some of these with nameless theologies who will NOT turn to the DoG into Arminians. They'd be a lot better off.

Wasn't this supposed to be civil, Luke?

 

[Skandelon]

Darkness and cold are not created things.

I understand that but the thought or intent to molest a child IS. Now, are you saying an uncreated thing (darkness/cold) is the cause for a created thing (sinful intent)?

What you are missing is that permission and allowance is only part of a whole in his thinking. The other part is God DISPOSING those events SO THAT evil WILL most CERTAINLY follow.

I have to admit. This frustrates me. Why? Because you have not really answered the question but instead have just introduced yet another undefined term: "Disposing"

Now we have God disposing/determining/ordaining/decreeing/originating/creating/permitting/allowing sinful intents or events? Do all those mean the same thing? If not, which one do you believe and DEFINE it.

We have both affirmed God permits the sin. We both affirm that because of his knowing and permitting the sin that it will most certainly come to pass. However, we still seem to be unclear on the ORIGIN of the sin itself.

Did the intent of Satan's heart ("I will ascend to heaven") originate in Satan's mind or in God's mind? Please answer this question with ONE WORD: SATAN or GOD.

No. True compatabalism simply states that the one deed is performed by both the human agent and God but with totally different motives.

Whatever, I really don't want to get into defining the different camps. I just know that what I have said is not compatibilism because I never affirmed that all things are causally determined by God. There may be some common ground with compatiblistic teaching, but its not compatiblism, otherwise we wouldn't have any disagreement.

I think I addressed this sufficiently above.

With all due respect, until you define the terms you are just talking in circles. If you answer the question above I think we will finally get to the heart of the matter.

 

[The Archangel]

My reply showed blame on both parts. It was asked for vitriolic posts to be brought to attention on this thread, and I was abiding by the wishes of the OP.

No, this is not what your post did. By your very actions--calling me out (wrongly, I might add) and accusing me of being "vitriolic," all the while not calling out DHK after calling him the "instigator" is pure hypocrisy.

Actually I was referring to "your lack of respect for the Scripture" which you conveniently left off.

No, I didn't leave it off. It was in the quote for all to see. I alluded to the first part of the quote to save keystrokes and space.

And, again, it is an observation, not an accusation--learn the difference

Your "observation" is false.
I didn't "break in", I was addressing the wishes of the originator of the OP...and I was involved in it before you even arrived.

You were addressing the wishes of the originator only when I addressed someone who is ideologically similar to yourself and, by your own admission, who was the instigator (meaning initiator) of the so-called "Vitriol."

If you were really addressing the wishes of the originator, you would have, at the very least, addressed DHK and me. Of course, you didn't do this. No, what you did was break into an other conversation to make a one-sided observation that fit your only purpose--to smear me. This is plain for everyone to see.

Carry on...

As if we needed your permission........ridiculous.

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

I understand that but the thought or intent to molest a child IS.

That is begging the question. It is a result of darkness. Such thoughts CANNOT exist in the presence of the light of God. God must withdraw his light in order for such a thought to take place.

The thought is the result of God's removal of his light just as darkness is the result of me turning the light off in this room.

I have to admit. This frustrates me. Why? Because you have not really answered the question but instead have just introduced yet another undefined term: "Disposing"

Now we have God disposing/determining/ordaining/decreeing/originating/creating/permitting/allowing sinful intents or events? Do all those mean the same thing? If not, which one do you believe and DEFINE it.

It is what God does. It is like the stacking of dominoes.

I thump the first and CAUSE the rest to fall but I do not thump the rest.

God disposes of events in such a way that when he starts the process certain events will infallibly follow by design.

God designed Adam and Eve and the Serpent and Lucifer and the universe just the way he designed it KNOWING full well that if he designed it that way what would infallibly follow.

If there were a SINGLE outcome throughout time til now and beyond that God did not ultimately wish to happen he could have tweaked the serpent here a little and Adam there a little and Lucifer here a little and design things such that that event, great or small, would most certainly not come to pass.

He could have designed the universe in such a way that I would like onions at this point in my life. If God wanted me to like onions before he built the universe he could have tweaked it just so that everything else would come to pass just as it has except for one thing: luke2427 would like onions.

But he did NOT tweak it that way. He designed it all exactly as he did to bring about the exact results that he knew would come to pass, great and small.

That is what is meant by "disposer of events".

The only logical conclusion is that God willed for the events that resulted in his creation and maintenance of the universe just as he has done it to come to pass.

BUT that is only PART of the scenario. God must still permit each domino to fall along the way.

We have both affirmed God permits the sin. We both affirm that because of his knowing and permitting the sin that it will most certainly come to pass.

Excellent. Now what are the conclusions of this fact. God permits it so that it will most certainly follow. What does that mean? What are the implications of this plain fact?

They are what God's Word confirms again and again:

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose,’

The Arminian argues: God NEVER purposed for evil to exist! That was not his PURPOSE for the earth!
But God said, "I will accomplish ALL my purpose."

God had a purpose for the earth when he made it and he will accomplish every hour of every day of her existence precisely what is his purpose.

However, we still seem to be unclear on the ORIGIN of the sin itself.

Did the intent of Satan's heart ("I will ascend to heaven") originate in Satan's mind or in God's mind? Please answer this question with ONE WORD: SATAN or GOD.

This is a false dilemma.

These may not be the only options. It is not that simplistic.

I have answered this sufficiently above. If not to your satisfaction I will gladly further elaborate.

Whatever, I really don't want to get into defining the different camps. I just know that what I have said is not compatibilism because I never affirmed that all things are causally determined by God. There may be some common ground with compatiblistic teaching, but its not compatiblism, otherwise we wouldn't have any disagreement.

When you agree with Edwards that God is the disposer of events in such a way so that upon his permission evil will most certainly come to pass and you also affirm that you believe man has a choice you are lining yourself up with compatabalism.

Edwards statement promotes the divine decree of the coming to be of evil.
Your statement confirms choice. The two together make up the essence of compatabalism.

 

[webdog]

No, this is not what your post did. By your very actions--calling me out (wrongly, I might add) and accusing me of being "vitriolic," all the while not calling out DHK after calling him the "instigator" is pure hypocrisy.



No, I didn't leave it off. It was in the quote for all to see. I alluded to the first part of the quote to save keystrokes and space.

And, again, it is an observation, not an accusation--learn the difference



You were addressing the wishes of the originator only when I addressed someone who is ideologically similar to yourself and, by your own admission, who was the instigator (meaning initiator) of the so-called "Vitriol."

If you were really addressing the wishes of the originator, you would have, at the very least, addressed DHK and me. Of course, you didn't do this. No, what you did was break into an other conversation to make a one-sided observation that fit your only purpose--to smear me. This is plain for everyone to see.



As if we needed your permission........ridiculous.

The Archangel

I guess you missed where the author of the OP asked to take this to PM? I'll address you there.

 

[glfredrick]

Please don't take anything I post as being snippy, rude, boastful, boistrous, etc. I don't see where the "impossibilty" of the originator of sin is. It lays solely on Lucifer. According to His Word, Lucifer was made good, until iniquity was found in him.....Ezek 28:15. In Isaiah 14, we see where his pride makes him want to exhalt himself above God, and he was thrown down. In Prov. 16 it says that pride goeth before the fall(I am paraphrasing here). Lucifer is the one who sinned first, or at least that's the way I see it. I do not find in His Record, where his arm was twisted, where he had outside influence, was coerced, etc. He chose to rebel against God, and in this rebellion,a third of the angels fell with him...Rev. 12.

I won't... I never meant my post to mean that people cannot have an opinion. Of course you can. I do get tired of people taking drive-by hits on persons with whom they disagree while not contributing to the debate in any meaningful way, however.

But, I disagree that we can KNOW what you propose from the Scriptures. We only know part of the story, and then we have to gather that part from multiple places and writers to even begin to have an idea of what transpired before written human history.

I do admit (readily) that Lucifer was the first to sin against God, but the first to do an action may or may not be the originator of that action. I also admit that Satan was (in all likelihood) not coerced into sin. I know that, not because it is stated as such in the text, but because an exegetically-derived inference is that a God who is not the author of sin would not coerce a created being to indeed sin. The larger issue of permissive will is another thing entirely and hence the rather large discussion on the topic.

Brother, how does a God of "free will" weaken His stature and/or status?? He IS God, and can go ANY route He chooses, or decrees. I never have found any scripture that will support "hell" until after Lucifer rebelled with a third of the angels in heaven. It was after their rebellion, that hell was created....or at least I think this is the case. If not, show me where I am wrong, and I will apologize for my mistake. Just because God allowed Lucifer to rebel, doesn't make Him not in control. He could have stopped Lucifer from what he did, but He didn't,for whatever reason, only He knows. He chose to allow the rebellion to take place, plain and simple.

By introducing fee will (in the sense it is being argued) one makes God a "responder" instead of THE initiator. That, in and of itself, weakens the stature and status of God, and I should add "in human perception" -- nothing truly weakens God in any sense whatsoever, He is Almighty!

Indeed, it was God being in control that demonstrated His divine will to act as He did. He is as much in control now as He was in creation and when Lucifer rebelled against Him. Had He not wished for Lucifer to rebel, He could have halted it. He did not, which means that He has further designs for that rebellion than what we may currently understand. To say otherwise is to say that metaphysical dualism is a reality, and that God and Satan are indeed locked into a war where the winner is not known until the war is ended.

That which I bolded, I will say a hearty AMEN!! :thumbs: I, too, will magnify God for what He did for me! What He did, no man could do, and that was save my soul!! Just because I believe in FW doesn't mean I believe in a "non-sovereign" God, because He is sovereign in that He gave us two destinations in which to choose from. When He calls, if we reject Him until the day we die, He controls our destination, hell. When He calls, and if we accept His free gift of salvation, He controls that destination, too....heaven. God is so sovereign, that when we were sinners out tromping down His "tender hand of mercy", He still had to give us our breath to do all our evil deeds. Now that IS sovereign!!

In a sense, you have to believe in a non-sovereign God, for you have made God a responder to your own actions. Inventing a theological doctrine that says that God's sovereignty is invested in the free will of humans (in the way that fee will is being presented in these debates) is of no consequence, for it cannot be demonstrated in the Scriptures. And, please do not be offended, but the issue of human free will is indeed a theological invention. Pelagius was the first to attempt it, and he was declared heretical. When the teachings of Arminius were brought to bear in the Synod of Dort, his teaching also was declared heretical. I'm not willing to carry Arminius' teachings to the same point Dort did, but I would greatly emphasize the aspects of God's sovereign grace over the free will of humans presented in those statements of the Remonstrance.

 

[Skandelon]

That is begging the question.

Oh, we are debating whether or not the intent to sin (i.e. the first thought to molest a child) is a created thing or not? Weird? If it's not then it doesn't really exist and since it does exist it must have an origin, right? I'm confused. If its not created then how does it exist?

It is a result of darkness.

Such thoughts CANNOT exist in the presence of the light of God. God must withdraw his light in order for such a thought to take place.

The thought is the result of God's removal of his light just as darkness is the result of me turning the light off in this room.

Ok, I'm really trying to follow you here. Lets say I'm sitting in the room and you turn the light off. And in my mind pops the thought, "I want to be like Luke and take his job and his house." Where did that thought originate? In me, as a result of your turning off the light? OR In you, as a result of you casually determining me to think a thought you originated before time began?

See? Your turning off a light doesn't answer the question about where the sinful intent originated. It only appears to be a fun little analogy to make God not seem so culpable for the origination of a sinful intent.

It is what God does. It is like the stacking of dominoes. I thump the first and CAUSE the rest to fall but I do not thump the rest.

Oh, so the analogy of stacking dominoes is acceptable but the starting of rolling a ball is not?

He designed it all exactly as he did to bring about the exact results that he knew would come to pass, great and small.

Aww, right there. See how you said, "he knew would come to pass?" That is different from caused or determined to come to pass. To foreknow something that will come to pass and permit it is DIFFERENT than to determine something to come to pass. You seem to switch back and forth at your convenience between these two distinctions in order to argue your point. This is what is causing confusion and making this discussion go in circles where I agree with you in one post and disagree in the next. My view hasn't changed. Yours has yet to be defined. I say this with respect, so please don't take offense. I'm just telling you what I see happening in our discussion.

BUT that is only PART of the scenario. God must still permit each domino to fall along the way.

When one of those dominos is original (i.e. the first time someone molested a child) then that intent had to originate somewhere. Did God first think that thought (make it into a domino) and then allow it to fall when the other events lead up to that moment? OR Did God merely know that criminal would originate that thought (create that domino himself) and permit it to fall? SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

Excellent. Now what are the conclusions of this fact. God permits it so that it will most certainly follow. What does that mean? What are the implications of this plain fact?

Arminianism

To my knowledge only Open Theist would deny the conclusions you have drawn here. Are you sure you are debating against Arminianism?

The Arminian argues: God NEVER purposed for evil to exist

They do? When?

Arminianus himself wrote: "I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that God both wills and performs good acts, but that He only freely permits those which are evil. Still farther than this, I very readily grant, that even all actions whatever, concerning evil, that can possibly be devised or invented, may be attributed to Divine Providence Employing solely one caution, not to conclude from this concession that God is the cause of sin."

This is a false dilemma.

These may not be the only options. It is not that simplistic.

Explain why this is a false dilemma? A false dilemma implies that a third viable option has been omitted, but you offer no third option. You only suggest it is not that simple, but if its not God and its not Satan then who are what is it? Is there something out their greater that is originating sinful thoughts and intents?

When you agree with Edwards that God is the disposer of events in such a way so that upon his permission evil will most certainly come to pass and you also affirm that you believe man has a choice you are lining yourself up with compatabalism.

Actually, I'm lining myself up with Arminianism and I've already explained the distinction between the two once and really don't want to take time to do it again. I can start another thread on the subject if you would like?