The Origin of Sin--PART III

[Skandelon]

Luke, could you please reply to my post 174 and post 175 of the last thread on the origin of sin that has now been closed?

 

[webdog]

Define "reply". Do you want feedback, acknowledgement, reaction, reciprocation, response, retaliation, retort, or something else?

Also, how are you using "origin", is it as an agent, antecedent, author, base, causality, causation, creator, derivation, determinant, generator, inception, inducement, influence, inspiration, motive, nucleus, principle, progenitor, provenance, provenience, root, seed, source, spring or something else?

Prophet Webdog

 

[convicted1]

Bro. Luke gave me this response in a post directed towards me:

That is how Lucifer became evil. God removed from him His divine goodness and evil inevitably followed.

This was a quote from Bro. Luke that was directed towards Bro. Skandelon:

Originally Posted by Luke2427
God willed for evil to be and he made sure that it came to be by doing two things:

1. He ordered events so that when he removed his goodness from Lucifer

These quotes were taken from the "Origin of Sin, Part Deux" thread.

Now Bro. Luke, you know I truly love you, and do not take this as me putting you on "blast" for all to read, but I am going to have to "call your hand" and ask you where can this be supported with scripture?

Here is a verse to keep in mind, Bro. Luke:

2 Cor. 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

So, in light of this verse, I think we can use this to mean, "in the light of two or three verses, let everything be established".

I am going to cut you some slack here, Brother. Just show me one, I mean one verse that you can support this with. Will you do this for me , Brother?

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, why do you think it was necessary for Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin?​

There was no necessity. The Virgin Birth was given as a sign.​

 

[Cypress]

There was no necessity. The Virgin Birth was given as a sign.[/LEFT]

I may not be privy to some other factors, but this is how I see it as well.:thumbsup:

 

[HankD]

I may not be privy to some other factors, but this is how I see it as well.:thumbsup:

If Jesus had been the natural son of Joseph could He be the Savior of mankind?

HankD

 

[HankD]

There was no necessity. The Virgin Birth was given as a sign.[/LEFT]

How about you Aaron - what do you think:

If Jesus had been the natural son of Joseph could He be our Savior?

Anyone else care to answer?

HankD

 

[Aaron]

How about you Aaron - what do you think:

If Jesus had been the natural son of Joseph could He be our Savior?

Anyone else care to answer?

HankD

Of course. There was no necessity in the Virgin Birth. Sin is not passed through the genes. The body for God's Son could have been prepared through any means whatever. It would have been inglorious. We'd all think it a little dirty, but Christ's body could have been prepared "in the family way" if God had so chosen.

This is the point: God chose the manner not by necessity, but by what would bring Him the most glory. It's a sign, but only a sign, and a sign perceived only by faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

To say that sin is passed through the genes, which are mere dust molecules, is to say that sin is a physical thing. It's superstitious and spawns a host of superstitious notions concerning Christ's body, not the least of which is DeHaan's "Divine Blood" theory. It also brings Christ's conception down to the Greek and Roman mythological notions of gods copulating with human women. That's paganism through and through.

 

[HankD]

Of course. There was no necessity in the Virgin Birth. Sin is not passed through the genes. The body for God's Son could have been prepared through any means whatever. It would have been inglorious. We'd all think it a little dirty, but Christ's body could have been prepared "in the family way" if God had so chosen.

This is the point: God chose the manner not by necessity, but by what would bring Him the most glory. It's a sign, but only a sign, and a sign perceived only by faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

To say that sin is passed through the genes, which are mere dust molecules, is to say that sin is a physical thing. It's superstitious and spawns a host of superstitious notions concerning Christ's body, not the least of which is DeHaan's "Divine Blood" theory. It also brings Christ's conception down to the Greek and Roman mythological notions of gods copulating with human women. That's paganism through and through.

OK thanks Aaron.

Just so you will know (if you don't already), the word "flesh" or "sarx" has a wider scope of meaning in the original language of the NT than just the molecular material covering of the bones although it does include that meaning.

It can be metaphorical.

e.g. In John 6 Jesus spoke of us "eating" His "flesh" which in the 21st century cannot be done (unless one believes in transubstantiation).


HankD

 

[DHK]

Of course. There was no necessity in the Virgin Birth. Sin is not passed through the genes. The body for God's Son could have been prepared through any means whatever. It would have been inglorious. We'd all think it a little dirty, but Christ's body could have been prepared "in the family way" if God had so chosen.

This is the point: God chose the manner not by necessity, but by what would bring Him the most glory. It's a sign, but only a sign, and a sign perceived only by faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

To say that sin is passed through the genes, which are mere dust molecules, is to say that sin is a physical thing. It's superstitious and spawns a host of superstitious notions concerning Christ's body, not the least of which is DeHaan's "Divine Blood" theory. It also brings Christ's conception down to the Greek and Roman mythological notions of gods copulating with human women. That's paganism through and through.

1. Then what is meant by ones "Adamic nature"?
2. Why is Adam the first Adam, and Christ the Second Adam?

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, could you please reply to my post 174 and post 175 of the last thread on the origin of sin that has now been closed?

Repost them here and I will see what I can do- I'll try my best to make time.

 

[Skandelon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke2427
Post # 67 sufficiently addresses it, imo.

If you require FURTHER clarification, let me know.

But I am not going to keep posting lengthy, detailed posts like post 67 and have them ignored and then be posed with the exact same questions I just answered.

Actually, with all due respect Luke, I do plan on responding to post 67, but only after you reply to post 65. Post 67 was your reply to post 62, not 65. You do not address all the questions I pose in #65.

You did address one of the questions I posed and I'll reply to that in the next post, but you didn't answer these questions:

Quote:
Skandelon: This doesn't remove the problem or answer the question we have been asking. I have affirmed this. God's disposing, arranging or ordering of events so as to ensure other things follow doesn't answer the question as to the origin of the intent to sin. Follow me on this.

Let's suppose Dahmer's dad beat him which was one of the "events" disposed by God. Does that mean that God originated the thought or intent of Mr. Dahmer to beat his kid? No, it means, as Edwards said, God permitted, or did not hinder it so that Dahmer's intent to molest and kill would most certainly come to pass. Again, you still have Dahmer originating the intent to sin just as you have his dad originating his own intent to sin. Calling God the disposer of events doesn't make him any more the originator of the sinful intent, it simply affirms the idea that he foreknew the sinful events an permitted them to certainly occur. How is that any more or less deterministic than what I have already affirmed about Edwards quote?

Quote:
Quote: Luke
That is the clear meaning. God is NOT JUST the permitter of sin. He is the One who orders events SO THAT sin will come to pass.
Quote:

Skandelon: Does "order" mean "cause/create/originate" because if so then the event where Dahmer's dad intended to beat his son was originated by God rather than permitted by God, as Edwards explains with regard to sinful acts. Which is it?

Can you reply to this part? Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke2427
God must do several things for anything to come to pass.
1. He must permit it.

Why? Why does God need to permit something he caused or originated?

Please explain that. If you casually determined your son to lie, then what purpose would there be in merely saying that you permitted him to lie? You never just permitted him, you actually CAUSED him to do it, so what in the world does mere permission have to do with something you caused? Do you understand my question?

Quote:
Which is a weaker way of saying that many Arminians agree with Calvinism on this point. Arminianism came late to the party. Calvinism doesn't agree with Arminianism on anything. Arminianism agrees with Calvinism on some things.

Actually, when it comes to the original doctrines (way before Calvin and Arminius came along), the early church fathers were more in line with what we know of as Arminian doctrine and Augustine was the first to espouse more Calvinistic teaching. (but that is for another post)

Quote:
It would be, imo, a nobler and more honest way of saying this than indicating that Edwards agrees with Arminians- though it is true, and though he may have said ti that way, we all know what he meant and we all know that Calvinism was here first.

Indeed, Calvin preceded Arminus, but the doctrines of each predate them both as explained above.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter who agrees with whom first in regard to our discussion, what matters is that Edwards words and thus his intent is not inconsistent with historical Arminianism, whereas yours appears to be.

So, if we played the little Sesame Street game "which one of these is not like the other," we would have a picture of historical arminians, a picture of Edwards and a picture of Luke. We would have the Arminians and Edwards all saying the same thing regarding God's permitting evil and disposing of events to so that they certainly come about, and then we would have you saying things like, ""Did Dahmer kill those people? Yes. Did God kill them? God's own testimony: "I kill and I make alive.""

Which one is different? Luke is.

Why? I'm not sure because he won't define his terms.

Quote:
I do not know why we are debating. You are a Calvinist.

<Skandelon drops his head in frustration, shakes it hopelessly and walks away mumbling something about how he wished more people understood real Arminianism>

Quote:
Please explain to me why you do not understand this. Why can you not seem to understand that if ANYTHING is to occur that God has decreed he must ALSO permit it when the time comes for it to come to pass?

Why would God need to permit something he caused?

 

[Luke2427]

Actually, with all due respect Luke, I do plan on responding to post 67, but only after you reply to post 65. Post 67 was your reply to post 62, not 65. You do not address all the questions I pose in #65.

You did address one of the questions I posed and I'll reply to that in the next post, but you didn't answer these questions:

Quote:
Skandelon: This doesn't remove the problem or answer the question we have been asking. I have affirmed this. God's disposing, arranging or ordering of events so as to ensure other things follow doesn't answer the question as to the origin of the intent to sin. Follow me on this.

Let's suppose Dahmer's dad beat him which was one of the "events" disposed by God. Does that mean that God originated the thought or intent of Mr. Dahmer to beat his kid? No, it means, as Edwards said, God permitted, or did not hinder it so that Dahmer's intent to molest and kill would most certainly come to pass. Again, you still have Dahmer originating the intent to sin just as you have his dad originating his own intent to sin. Calling God the disposer of events doesn't make him any more the originator of the sinful intent, it simply affirms the idea that he foreknew the sinful events an permitted them to certainly occur. How is that any more or less deterministic than what I have already affirmed about Edwards quote?


Skandelon: Does "order" mean "cause/create/originate" because if so then the event where Dahmer's dad intended to beat his son was originated by God rather than permitted by God, as Edwards explains with regard to sinful acts. Which is it?

Can you reply to this part? Thanks

What a few of us have been trying to show you is that you are missing the essence of Edwards very clear remark.

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."

What you miss is that the phrase "and at the same time" refers to another separate thing.

God, according to Edwards, not only PERMITS, but AT THE SAME TIME he arranges events so that sin will infallibly follow.

That he meant it this way is not hard to prove. All of us, I am sure, have The Works of Jonathan Edwards and a light perusal will supply EVEN clearer remarks to this end.

Now, "does order mean originate?"

The best ANYONE on EITHER side can do is say that it is a paradox.

It cannot be explained how that man can perform an evil deed and God intend and ordain that that deed come to pass and the man be fully responsible having chosen of his own will to do that deed and God be perfectly holy and just having fully willed and arranged that that deed come to pass.

The best any of us can do is say, "God's motive and man's motive are not the same."

But we see this clearly, LITERALLY, from cover to cover in the Bible.

Genesis 50 "You thought evil against me but God MEANT IT for good."

Acts 4:27-28 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place.

Rev 17:17 For God has put it into their hearts to carry out His purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

And there you have it.

God and man willing and doing the exact same deeds with two TOTALLY different motives.

It really is not difficult to understand when you just accept by faith the teaching of God's Word on the matter.

Pilate and Herod and the Jews and the Gentiles with evil hearts full of hate and arrogance sent Jesus to the cross to kill him and be rid of him.
God with a heart pure and holy sent him to the same cross by the exact same hands having ordained it to come to pass in eternity past- but he did it to save the souls of billions and bring honor and glory to Christ forever.

This is the Word of God.

 

[Skandelon]

What a few of us have been trying to show you is that you are missing the essence of Edwards very clear remark.

If that is true, then so has Edwards himself because the quote itself claims to line up with historical Arminianism, something you appear to miss.

What you miss is that the phrase "and at the same time" refers to another separate thing.

I didn't miss that phrase either. I quoted it along with the rest and affirmed it too...just like the other Arminian divines would have.

God, according to Edwards, not only PERMITS, but AT THE SAME TIME he arranges events so that sin will infallibly follow.

Again, this has been affirmed countless times. Please Luke, you must work with me. I'm really trying.

Now, "does order mean originate?"
The best ANYONE on EITHER side can do is say that it is a paradox.
It cannot be explained how that man can perform an evil deed and God intend and ordain that that deed come to pass and the man be fully responsible having chosen of his own will to do that deed and God be perfectly holy and just having fully willed and arranged that that deed come to pass.

So, you are not willing to say that God originated the sinful intent, is that correct?

BTW, appealing to mystery with regard to man's will to choose something is the very heart of Libertarian freedom and this all was to simply help you to see that we both appeal to mystery in that regard.

If mystery is appealed to in regard to how man originates evil, then their should be no problem with appealing to mystery with regard to how one man can respond in faith to God's call to be reconciled while another rejects it.

God and man willing and doing the exact same deeds with two TOTALLY different motives.

Whoa! Now you say God is "doing" the sinful deed? Even Edwards carefully denied this accusation of his view. Are you sure you don't want to reword that?

It is okay for someone to murder, lie, cheat and steal as long as they have the right motive? James didn't say, "God never tempts men to evil, unless he has a good reason."

Pilate and Herod and the Jews and the Gentiles with evil hearts full of hate and arrogance sent Jesus to the cross to kill him and be rid of him.
God with a heart pure and holy sent him to the same cross by the exact same hands having ordained it to come to pass in eternity past- but he did it to save the souls of billions and bring honor and glory to Christ forever.

But, the question is did God have to make them want to kill Jesus? Did he have to originate that evil intent in their heart? OR did God simply have to hide the truth (blind them, send a spirit of stupor) so that they would do what they already wanted to do?

Let's look at another analogy. Suppose my 3 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking...she is about to steal a cookie and she knows she isn't supposed to.


Now, as a parent I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie...at least until the next time she was alone. However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pouce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I didn't cause it. I could have ended it my simply showing myself, but I didn't. This is like hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to sin. Am I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.

Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him? Of course. He could have done a "Damascus road experience" with all the Jews if He wanted to. He didn't. Instead we see Christ telling his disciples to keep things quite until the right time. We see him hiding the truth in parables. WHY? If men are born deaf, blind and dumb to the truth why would he need to do this??? He did it because he didn't want them to come to repentance YET! He had a bigger redemtive purpose to accomplish through them first.

 

[Luke2427]

If that is true, then so has Edwards himself because the quote itself claims to line up with historical Arminianism, something you appear to miss.

I've already responded to this statement of yours multiple times.

Arminianism lines ITSELF up with Calvinism on this point.

You do not know Edwards at all if you do not understand that Edwards was no friend to Arminianism.

I do this all of the time on BB. I say, "Even Arminians agree that..."

That is all that Edwards is doing.

I didn't miss that phrase either. I quoted it along with the rest and affirmed it too...just like the other Arminian divines would have.

Great. You agree with Calvinism that God willed for evil to exist and organized the universe intending for it to come to pass.

We are on the same page.

Again, this has been affirmed countless times. Please Luke, you must work with me. I'm really trying.

Me too.

So, you are not willing to say that God originated the sinful intent, is that correct?

I am willing to say that God ordained that the event should come to pass in eternity past. By ordain I mean that he planned it, intended for it to come to pass, actively organized the universe so that it most certainly WOULD come to pass because he had a divine purpose for the event.

BTW, appealing to mystery with regard to man's will to choose something is the very heart of Libertarian freedom and this all was to simply help you to see that we both appeal to mystery in that regard.

If mystery is appealed to in regard to how man originates evil, then their should be no problem with appealing to mystery with regard to how one man can respond in faith to God's call to be reconciled while another rejects it.

Appealing to mystery is what we have to do for EVERYTHING once we trace it's origins back far enough. Ultimates are ALWAYS mysterious. I don't care if it is about what makes apples red. If you ask why enough times eventually men must throw up their hands and say- It is a mystery.

But we CAN know a LOT of things about what makes the apple red.

Just the same way, we DON'T know the ultimate origins of evil- but we CAN know a great deal about it.

What we CAN know God willed it and planned and controls it and has a glorious purpose for it.
The Bible teaches those things. They are not up for conjecture. They are Scriptural facts.

Whoa! Now you say God is "doing" the sinful deed? Even Edwards carefully denied this accusation of his view. Are you sure you don't want to reword that?

You do not understand Edwards on this matter.
God is doing EVERYTHING. His MOTIVE is pure.
But in a mysterious way man is also doing what he does. His motive is never pure.

Answer these questions:
Did God crucify Christ?
Did Rome crucify Christ?

Did God toss Joseph in the pit?
Did Joseph's brothers toss him into the pit?

Did Satan afflict Job?
Did God afflict Job?

Can God lie?
Can God send a strong delusion that men believe a lie?

It is okay for someone to murder, lie, cheat and steal as long as they have the right motive? James didn't say, "God never tempts men to evil, unless he has a good reason."

If the motive is right it is NOT murder, lying, cheating and stealing.

Murder is not the brutal killing of someone. Murder is the brutal killing of someone for the wrong motive. Do it in war it makes you a hero. Do it in front of a man's family it makes you a monster.

Your motive for killing on the battlefield is what keeps it from being murder. You CAN murder on the battlefield if your motive is not right there, too. But you get the idea.

Taking something that does not belong to you is not stealing. There are gleaning laws IN THE BIBLE. But taking something motivated by COVETOUSNESS is stealing.

MOTIVE IS EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.

Now you are going to respond here with some questions and I am going to go ahead and tell you the answer is this: MOTIVE IS EVERYTHING.

I will show you Bible if you require.

But, the question is did God have to make them want to kill Jesus?

I think I have answered this a few different times. No.

All that must happen for evil to exist is for good to be removed just as all that is necessary for dark to exist is for light to be removed.

Did he have to originate that evil intent in their heart? OR did God simply have to hide the truth (blind them, send a spirit of stupor) so that they would do what they already wanted to do?

False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

1. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?

Let's look at another analogy. Suppose my 3 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking...she is about to steal a cookie and she knows she isn't supposed to.


Now, as a parent I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie...at least until the next time she was alone. However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pouce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I didn't cause it. I could have ended it my simply showing myself, but I didn't. This is like hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to sin. Am I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.

Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him? Of course. He could have done a "Damascus road experience" with all the Jews if He wanted to. He didn't. Instead we see Christ telling his disciples to keep things quite until the right time. We see him hiding the truth in parables. WHY? If men are born deaf, blind and dumb to the truth why would he need to do this??? He did it because he didn't want them to come to repentance YET! He had a bigger redemtive purpose to accomplish through them first.

So long as in the analogy you have ordered events so that your daughter will most certainly get the cookie because you have a noble purpose for her getting the cookie.

 

[Skandelon]

Arminianism lines ITSELF up with Calvinism on this point.

There are different brands of determinists within the Calvinistic worldview and we are still attempting to determine which brand you are.

You do not know Edwards at all if you do not understand that Edwards was no friend to Arminianism.

Not the point. We are only referring to his response to the same accusation being leveled at you, "Your view makes God the "author of sin." We know Edwards response and that it aligns with historical Arminians. We don't know where you stand however which is why we keep going in circles.

I do this all of the time on BB. I say, "Even Arminians agree that..."

That is all that Edwards is doing.

So, why don't you say that this time and just admit God doesn't originate or do sin, but instead permits it, disposing events so it will certainly come to pass? You keep adding to Edwards quote making him say something historical Arminians would never say.

Great. You agree with Calvinism that God willed for evil to exist and organized the universe intending for it to come to pass.

We are on the same page.

Yes, if you mean "willed" as "permitted, not hindered etc," as Edwards carefully explained. NOT, if you mean it like you have in some of these other quotes where you have God "doing" the sin for a good motive.

Again, if you go back to the OP of the first thread the question was always about the ORIGIN of the intent. Where did the evil thought even originate? Edwards affirms that its permitted but that God does not do sin and even thinking up such a heinous crime would be sin.

I am willing to say that God ordained that the event should come to pass in eternity past. By ordain I mean that he planned it, intended for it to come to pass, actively organized the universe so that it most certainly WOULD come to pass because he had a divine purpose for the event.

Ok, so we agree that God didn't originate it. FINALLY!!! Shew! Only three threads and several dozen posts to get that answer.

How does man originate a thought?

Appealing to mystery is what we have to do for EVERYTHING once we trace it's origins back far enough

. Back far enough to where you don't have a Calvinistic response, or back far enough we don't have clear revelation from scripture itself? You presume that scripture supports some of your conclusions about sovereignty and free will, but in reality they aren't clear enough to support your view of "sovereignty" more than the Arminian view. We see through a glass dimly and will not fully understand all these things until we get to heaven.

Just the same way, we DON'T know the ultimate origins of evil- but we CAN know a great deal about it.

Only two options. God or creature. I go with "creature" because I think scripture is quite clear that God doesn't sin or even tempt men to evil.

You do not understand Edwards on this matter.
God is doing EVERYTHING. His MOTIVE is pure.
But in a mysterious way man is also doing what he does. His motive is never pure.

This is what I mean. Arminians would NEVER affirm that God is doing everything!!!

And even Edwards said, "If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant ‘the sinner, ...‘the doer of a wicked thing’; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin."

So, Edwards says, God is not the "doer of a wicked thing" and you say, "God is doing Everything," and then you say I don't understand Edwards?

If the motive is right it is NOT murder, lying, cheating and stealing

I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever on trail. "But judge, I meant well."

Murder is not the brutal killing of someone. Murder is the brutal killing of someone for the wrong motive. Do it in war it makes you a hero. Do it in front of a man's family it makes you a monster.

Your motive for killing on the battlefield is what keeps it from being murder. You CAN murder on the battlefield if your motive is not right there, too. But you get the idea.

Again its a difference in terms. Typically people wouldn't refer to what a soilder does as "murder" unless they are anti-war folks.

Taking something that does not belong to you is not stealing. There are gleaning laws IN THE BIBLE. But taking something motivated by COVETOUSNESS is stealing.

MOTIVE IS EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING

But you are still not understanding my argument. Who originated the MOTIVE in man? Where did Dahmer get the motive to torture people? It had to originate somewhere and THAT is the only subject of this thread.

I think I have answered this a few different times. No.

Now, I don't get this! I asked, "Did God have to make them want to kill Jesus?" But earlier you said "God is doing everything." So which is it? Someone has to make them want to kill Jesus. Was it them or God?

False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

1. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?

Then provide the correct option and explain.

So long as in the analogy you have ordered events so that your daughter will most certainly get the cookie because you have a noble purpose for her getting the cookie.

Well, that is where foreknowledge and my permission would come it, just as Edwards explained.

 

[Luke2427]

There are different brands of determinists within the Calvinistic worldview and we are still attempting to determine which brand you are.

Not the point. We are only referring to his response to the same accusation being leveled at you, "Your view makes God the "author of sin." We know Edwards response and that it aligns with historical Arminians. We don't know where you stand however which is why we keep going in circles.


So, why don't you say that this time and just admit God doesn't originate or do sin, but instead permits it, disposing events so it will certainly come to pass? You keep adding to Edwards quote making him say something historical Arminians would never say.

Yes, if you mean "willed" as "permitted, not hindered etc," as Edwards carefully explained. NOT, if you mean it like you have in some of these other quotes where you have God "doing" the sin for a good motive.

Again, if you go back to the OP of the first thread the question was always about the ORIGIN of the intent. Where did the evil thought even originate? Edwards affirms that its permitted but that God does not do sin and even thinking up such a heinous crime would be sin.

Ok, so we agree that God didn't originate it. FINALLY!!! Shew! Only three threads and several dozen posts to get that answer.

How does man originate a thought?

. Back far enough to where you don't have a Calvinistic response, or back far enough we don't have clear revelation from scripture itself? You presume that scripture supports some of your conclusions about sovereignty and free will, but in reality they aren't clear enough to support your view of "sovereignty" more than the Arminian view. We see through a glass dimly and will not fully understand all these things until we get to heaven.

Only two options. God or creature. I go with "creature" because I think scripture is quite clear that God doesn't sin or even tempt men to evil.

This is what I mean. Arminians would NEVER affirm that God is doing everything!!!

And even Edwards said, "If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant ‘the sinner, ...‘the doer of a wicked thing’; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin."

So, Edwards says, God is not the "doer of a wicked thing" and you say, "God is doing Everything," and then you say I don't understand Edwards?

I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever on trail. "But judge, I meant well."

Again its a difference in terms. Typically people wouldn't refer to what a soilder does as "murder" unless they are anti-war folks.

But you are still not understanding my argument. Who originated the MOTIVE in man? Where did Dahmer get the motive to torture people? It had to originate somewhere and THAT is the only subject of this thread.


Now, I don't get this! I asked, "Did God have to make them want to kill Jesus?" But earlier you said "God is doing everything." So which is it? Someone has to make them want to kill Jesus. Was it them or God?


Then provide the correct option and explain.


Well, that is where foreknowledge and my permission would come it, just as Edwards explained.

There is no point in going further.

You do not see Edwards' clear meaning.

You are determined to make it all about permission when it clearly is not.

God CANNOT do a wicked thing. He can DO the same thing that the man is doing- he DOES- Scripture is VERY plain. But his MOTIVE is pure. It is focused upon an ultimate glorious outcome whereas the man doing the thing does it for wicked purposes and for an immediate and evil outcome.

God CANNOT DO a wicked thing- because he cannot have evil as a motive.

What you are not getting, is that God AND man are doing the same things.

If you had answered the questions I posed to you earlier you would see this.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There is no point in going further.

You do not see Edwards' clear meaning.

You are determined to make it all about permission when it clearly is not.

God CANNOT do a wicked thing. He can DO the same thing that the man is doing- he DOES- Scripture is VERY plain. But his MOTIVE is pure. It is focused upon an ultimate glorious outcome whereas the man doing the thing does it for wicked purposes and for an immediate and evil outcome.

God CANNOT DO a wicked thing- because he cannot have evil as a motive.

What you are not getting, is that God AND man are doing the same things.

If you had answered the questions I posed to you earlier you would see this.

:thumbs::thumbs: Allright!

 

[Luke2427]

There is no point in going further.

You do not see Edwards' clear meaning.

You are determined to make it all about permission when it clearly is not.

God CANNOT do a wicked thing. He can DO the same thing that the man is doing- he DOES- Scripture is VERY plain. But his MOTIVE is pure. It is focused upon an ultimate glorious outcome whereas the man doing the thing does it for wicked purposes and for an immediate and evil outcome.

God CANNOT DO a wicked thing- because he cannot have evil as a motive.

What you are not getting, is that God AND man are doing the same things.

If you had answered the questions I posed to you earlier you would see this.

Here is Edwards again on the matter:

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .

Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

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.