Calvinism/origin of sin 2

[Luke2427]

Your quote from Piper says God is the author of sin. I was only quoting him.

Also, I watched the film clip you posted in the other thread and there Piper says all sins and evil were preordained by God, all wife beatings ... I do not remember the whole list. But it certainly sounded as if he attributes all sin to God in that God preordained the evil.

As I said in other posts, what kind of father would predestine pain and suffering on his children in order to show how loving he is?

You say they have a choice, but at the same time you say they were predestined to select wrongly .. so they really had no choice. That can only be the logical conclusion of predestination and/or pre-ordination.

I can only go by what you quote from him.

No sir. What you did was make the leap from Piper saying that God ordained that sin be to "men do not choose to sin".

Just because God ordained something to coem to pass does not mean that men do not choose freely to do that thing that God ordained to come to pass.

God does not compel men to sin.

He in his divine brilliance has ordered a world in which sin will most certainly exist. He has done this that he might display and bestow the full measure of his love upon his people.

Without sin there can be no saving grace to be praised and to be experienced forever.

Without sin there can be no infinite mercy to be glorified and appreciated forever.

Without sin there can be no redemption from sin and no Redeemer to receive honor and glory for it forever; and there can be no redeemed people to bask in the wonder of God's redeeming love forever.

Why would you want God NOT to want these things???

 

[Luke2427]

Calvinists play word games to hid their doctrine. When they say men sin by their own choice, they leave out that they believe the only choice a fallen man can make is sinful. So what they call "choice" is in fact "non-choice" or "compatibillistic choice."

No one's hiding anything.

Most, if not ALL of us, have been abundantly clear on the Total Depravity of man.

Compatabalism IS what we believe. We are not being secretive about it.


I do not know why you would make such an unfounded insult.

 

[Luke2427]

If God is holding the domino up, and He lets go of it...how is it the domino's choice not to fall if that is what is going to happen when it is let go?

It is the nature of anything to fall without God holding it up. Do you deny it?

God upholds all things by the word of His power.

Nothing can fall if he does not allow it to.

Nothing can stand if he does not hold it up.

Do you not agree?

We have to establish this much before we can answer the question as to how choice is involved.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke said :

Webdog replied:

Web, yes, you are correct ... pretty good analogy. To say we have a choice and then to say that God predestined our choice is to make God very duplicitous and I believe that is a huge error.

Also it seems to me from what I have seen on this board that Luke and Calvinists either do not see the logical conclusion of their belief or are afraid to acknowledge that logical conclusion.

Getting on toward quitting time over here and I'm off tomorrow playing tourist. Have fun.

Why does it make God duplicitous?

You hurl these claims without support.

Show the link between God predestining everything and God being duplicitous.

To us, that sounds absurd.

Show WHY that must be so in your opinion. Don't just claim it IS so. Show WHY and HOW.

 

[Luke2427]

Before we go any further I assume this is directed at me and we need to clarify something: I've NEVER ONCE said that I think Calvinists believe that God ONLY permits sin. I've have addressed the quote you provided from Edwards, and I've not limited it to "bare permission." I've acknowledged the "disposing of events" and the certainty of said events coming to pass. The thing I've pressed you on, which you still have failed to address is:

Please clarify further then by articulating what you believe "permissive decree" means.

You indeed have acknowledged that God has ordered that evil come to pass.

You have agreed that God intended for it to come to pass and that he has a purpose for it.

This is because you actually have a theology, and I am glad, and I commend you. As you know, most on here have no theology. I am glad that you have a consistent set of beliefs in contrast to these.

But, just as you do not understand why I think permission is even NECESSARY, I do not understand what you think permissive decree even means.

If men do not sin by "bare permission" then what permission DOES exist?

1. What part does ANY amount of permission play in your view where God is doing the evil act...i.e. "killing his son" ???

Sin is falling. (Romans 3:23) God intends for man to fall. God has a purpose for man falling.

In order for man to fall, God must STOP holding him up.

God must let him go or, in other words, remove his upholding power.

Then God must LET him fall.

If God does not LET him fall, he cannot fall. LETTING him fall is essential to him falling.

Let = permit.

2. What point is there in speaking of God permitting that which he is actively doing?

Since nothing can stand without God holding it up he does not HAVE to actively force it to fall. He must simply REMOVE his upholding power.

3. And finally how is your view consistent with Edward position and the postion of the Arminian divines? Regardless of what Piper/Calvin have said (which we can discuss too), this doesn't negate the inconsistencies you have with Edwards.

Wrong. How is it NOT?

You acknowledged that you affirm the idea of a permissive decree but have yet to tell us one thing that might fall under this decree as apposed to the active decree of God. Can you answer that?

God does not have to drive men to evil. Evil is the absence of the goodness of God (or just goodness- since God is the fount of all goodness and the sole source of it).

In order for any true good to take place God must act because he is the sole source of good. In order for evil to take place God must not act- he simply must remove his goodness. Once he does this he simply lets the person fall.

 

[psalms109:31]

The deivil

Our fight is against the devil who night and day accuse the brethren, not against God or each other. It is a bad thing where one side of a coin is placed face down and and the back side is only revealing the side they love to spread.

Revelation 12:10
Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.

Ephesians 6:
The Whole Armor of God

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[NU-Text reads rulers of this darkness.] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

 

[Luke2427]

Skating so close to the pit of hell can still get you burned.

What people don't want to admit is that sin comes from with in our flesh. The one who does it, is the sinner. The one who authors it, is the sinner. I believe this is why we are all called sinners. God doesn't allow sin or author it. Which is why He commanded us not to do it. Satan is the ruler of this world for now, but not for long.

To say God authored sin shows the man who said it is a sinner and in danger of hell fire. I believe statements like that are blaspheme.
MB

WHY is it true that the author of sin is the sinner? Because you say so?

And how does sin exist if God does not PERMIT or ALLOW it?

Is the sinner more powerful than God? How can sin exist if God does not permit it.

 

[Luke2427]

But to say that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass is to say that God decrees the temptation of man which James clearly and unequivocally denies.

God decrees that temptation BE, but that does not make God the tempter.

If you think it does, please show the necessary link.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

First, it was the angel's idea to be a lying spirit, not God's, although God did allow it. God had already determined that Ahab would die in chapter 21.

It was the same for Job, it was Satan's idea to attack him, the Lord allowed it to prove that Job truly loved him, and not because he was blessed. He defeated Satan in this challenge when Job remained faithful.

And God did not cause the chief priests and scribes to crucify Jesus, they hated him out of envy and had long sought to kill him.

In all these cases God allowed sin to fulfill a great purpose, but he did not motivate any or tempt anyone to sin.

The Angel did not teach God the best way to proceed. Do you really think that God hadn't already decreed what that Angel would say? God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and immutable. The angel simply said what he was destined to say from eternity past. God is never surprised and he doesn't learn from anyone. No plan is carried out that he didn't plan himself and put into motion.

Ezekiel 34:31 NIV
You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign LORD.'"

But to say that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass is to say that God decrees the temptation of man which James clearly and unequivocally denies. The obvious and clear intent of James is to rid someone of the concept (often held by those in OT times especially) that God is responsible for the temptation to do evil.

There are many things the revelation of the NT made clear to us. Things like the fact that we are no longer to be seen as slaves, but instead "friends" of God. We no longer receive a spirit of slavery and fear, but one of adoption and love. Likewise, the view of God's nature is being made more clear in the NT by showing that He is transcendent and Holy and should not be blamed in such ways for the evils of this world. Your dogma reverses that teaching to put the culpability right back onto God. It is not a biblical teaching.

James doesn't deny that God decrees the temptation. He denies that God physically does the tempting. That is done by the man himself and by tempting spirits.

I am not accusing God of evil in any way, quite the contrary. As a matter of fact I am saying that God is sovereign, has decreed all things that will come to pass, is righteous and perfect and good, and that man is accountable for his own actions.

When certain people hear those things they place lables on God themselves. I don't. I worship him and believe he is great.

As you have shown the "calamity" and "evil" in this verse are synonymous. They refer to natural disasters like the earthquake/tsunami that hit Japan recently. These disasters have been happening ever since the creation of the world. From man's perspective he often views them as evil. But God has his perspective and purpose in all of these things. This verse does not teach:

I the Lord create the rapist, the serial bomber, the ruthless genocidic dictator. It doesn't say or teach that. It is speaking of natural "calamities," or disasters.

It is quite clear that the Lord has decreed not only the natural disasters but sins as well. As Acts 4 is clear that God decreed people commit the worst sin ever committed the crucifiction of the Son of God.

In reply to a post speaking of God allowing evil for his own glory, I said:

Quote:
So God is egotistical and needs us to praise him, in the misery he caused, so he will feel good?[/quote

Osage replied:


I agree, it is blasphemous, but that is exactly what Calvinist are saying according to the quotes given in this and other threads.

You are the one here that judges the sovereign God as something less than good. I claim the opposite.

If it were your wife, or daughter, I'll let you then thank God for allowing you to be be part of something God decreed for a supposed good reason. What garbage! And you wonder why many Christians see this system of doctrine as a doctrine of evil!

I know that all of my loved ones and myself will come to grief indeed. It is God's good plan and my faith in him will not be shaken no matter what happens. He is my God and I am his child forever.

Proverbs 3:5-6 ESV
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.

 

[webdog]

It is the nature of anything to fall without God holding it up. Do you deny it?

God upholds all things by the word of His power.

Nothing can fall if he does not allow it to.

Nothing can stand if he does not hold it up.

Do you not agree?

We have to establish this much before we can answer the question as to how choice is involved.

I asked a simple question that does not need all of this diverting in order to be answered. If God has decreed something can stand or fall without Him needing to hold it up, it does not need to be held up.

 

[Luke2427]

I asked a simple question that does not need all of this diverting in order to be answered. If God has decreed something can stand or fall without Him needing to hold it up, it does not need to be held up.

There is a difference between a discussion and an interrogation.

An interrogation is when one person asks all the questions and another person is expected to do nothing but give answers.

I will not submit myself to an interrogation on a DEBATE forum.

You might as well not ask me any questions if you do not intend to answer some yourself.

Your question cannot rightly be dealt with until you provide the needful information requested.

It is the nature of anything to fall without God holding it up. Do you deny it?

God upholds all things by the word of His power.

Nothing can fall if he does not allow it to.

Nothing can stand if he does not hold it up.

Do you not agree?

We have to establish this much before we can answer the question as to how choice is involved.

 

[webdog]

There is a difference between a discussion and an interrogation.

An interrogation is when one person asks all the questions and another person is expected to do nothing but give answers.

I will not submit myself to an interrogation on a DEBATE forum.

You might as well not ask me any questions if you do not intend to answer some yourself.

Your question cannot rightly be dealt with until you provide the needful information requested.

It is the nature of anything to fall without God holding it up. Do you deny it?

God upholds all things by the word of His power.

Nothing can fall if he does not allow it to.

Nothing can stand if he does not hold it up.

Do you not agree?

We have to establish this much before we can answer the question as to how choice is involved.

You really thought my question was an "interrogation"? Really? :laugh:

I gave you my answer in the second part of my reply.

 

[Luke2427]

You really thought my question was an "interrogation"? Really? :laugh:

I gave you my answer in the second part of my reply.

By what power does it stand?

 

[webdog]

By what power does it stand?

His decree.

If you maintain it must be held up, how is it accountable for falling when He lets it go? What choice does it have in standing or falling?

 

[Luke2427]

His decree.

If you maintain it must be held up, how is it accountable for falling when He lets it go? What choice does it have in standing or falling?

Decree is not power. Power is what God uses to carry out his decree.

That's like saying it is held up by God's light. POWER is required to hold something up.

Scripture is clear about this. God upholds all things by the word of his POWER.

Do you not agree?

 

[webdog]

Decree is not power. Power is what God uses to carry out his decree.

Not according to the creation account.

That's like saying it is held up by God's light. POWER is required to hold something up.

...and if God gives this "power"?

Scripture is clear about this. God upholds all things by the word of his POWER.

Do you not agree?

Based on your domino analogy, I do not.

Now... If you maintain it must be held up, how is it accountable for falling when He lets it go? What choice does it have in standing or falling?

 

[Luke2427]

Not according to the creation account.

The WORD of his POWER, Webdog.

...and if God gives this "power"?

Can God relinquish his power and thus there be power that is not His??

God will ceaqse to be God if some power exists that is not his. By definition God must be ALL-powerful.

Of course Scripture confirms this repeatedly. One of numerous examples is Romans 11:36- "For of him and through him and to him are all things."

Col. 1 is another. Therein it says, "He is before all things and by him all things consist."

What does that mean to you that "by him all things consist"?

Based on your domino analogy, I do not.

You do not agree that God upholds all things by the word of his power?????????????????

Now... If you maintain it must be held up, how is it accountable for falling when He lets it go? What choice does it have in standing or falling?

Why does it matter? If it is so, it does not matter how.

We need to determine if it is so or not. THEN we can attempt to understand HOW.

 

[webdog]

I don't have the patience that Skandelon has. I've done the merry-go-round thing before. You are now "interrogating" me based on how you defined it

I asked you a simple question based on YOUR understanding...not mine. YOU should be able to support YOUR understanding of YOUR analogy. If you cannot do that, then just say so. If man is nothing but an inanimate domino that needs to be held up, and YOU maintain God removes His finger and allows it to fall, YOU should be able to tell us how the domino had a choice in the matter.

It's quite simple. It matters because you claim this is how it is. Now put your money where your keyboard is.

"An interrogation is when one person asks all the questions and another person is expected to do nothing but give answers."

Time to answer mine based on YOUR understanding and needing no further clarification on how I understand it.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't have the patience that Skandelon has. I've done the merry-go-round thing before. You are now "interrogating" me based on how you defined it

I asked you a simple question based on YOUR understanding...not mine. YOU should be able to support YOUR understanding of YOUR analogy. If you cannot do that, then just say so. If man is nothing but an inanimate domino that needs to be held up, and YOU maintain God removes His finger and allows it to fall, YOU should be able to tell us how the domino had a choice in the matter.

It's quite simple. It matters because you claim this is how it is. Now put your money where your keyboard is.

"An interrogation is when one person asks all the questions and another person is expected to do nothing but give answers."

Time to answer mine based on YOUR understanding and needing no further clarification on how I understand it.

A debate requires at least two people, BOTH submitting their ideas to the scrutiny of the other.

You must present your opposing view point or this is not a debate- it is, as I said, an interrogation.

I present my views. You question them. You present your views and I question them and answer your questions on my views, etc...

No intelligent person is going to enter a debate with ANYONE on the grounds that the other does not have to submit his OWN views to scrutiny as well. That's silly, and I expect better from you.

 

[Skandelon]

Please clarify further then by articulating what you believe "permissive decree" means.

Now you want a definition from me? Let's see, how long should I wait to accommodate this request? How about I just refer you to the thread I started on the subject which started with a full explanation of what I believe about this: HERE

You indeed have acknowledged that God has ordered that evil come to pass.

You have agreed that God intended for it to come to pass and that he has a purpose for it.

I've never used this verbiage to describe what I believe and since you've yet to really define what you mean by some of these terms I cannot concede to such claims...

If men do not sin by "bare permission" then what permission DOES exist?

I'm usually pretty good in deciphering what people mean when asking a question, but I read this one several times and I honestly cannot figure out what you are attempting to ask. Can you reword the question? Sorry.

Sin is falling. (Romans 3:23) God intends for man to fall. God has a purpose for man falling.

I agree that God has a purpose to accomplish in allowing evil to enter the world, but your use of the word "intends" is quite ambiguous because it at least connotes the idea that God takes pleasure or desires sin. It is these types of statements that get you into trouble...they are much to unclear and can be taken in ways not intended. This is why you should stick with the language of men like Edwards, IMO.

In order for man to fall, God must STOP holding him up.

God must let him go or, in other words, remove his upholding power.

Then God must LET him fall.

If God does not LET him fall, he cannot fall. LETTING him fall is essential to him falling.

Let = permit.

Letting him fall may be essential to him falling, but to believe as you do that it necessitates his falling does not follow, it is just presumed. You have no basis for such a belief. As Webdog pointed out, if man is some inanimate object, like a domino, the "letting go" is the direct and active work of the one doing the "letting." It would be like the man who controls the damn letting the water through to drown all the people in the city and defending himself by saying, "I didn't do it, the water did it, I just let it go." He is going to jail for obvious reasons.

Plus, in your system God doesn't just LET GO of Adam so that he will freely choose one path or the other, God DECREES the choice and even the INTENT of that choice. To even speak of the "letting go" is senseless in this scenario.

If I build a robot that is programmed to lie when asked a question, what point is there in speaking about my letting him lie? I didn't LET him lie, I programmed him to lie. I MADE him to LIE. There is nothing in your system which removes this conclusion with regard to God's creation of man and his decree of their sinful choices.