Calvinism/origin of sin 2

[Luke2427]

You really need to get a grip on your self.

This kind of stuff is unhelpful in a debate. You'd do better to stick with the issues than addressing the person and what you perceive to be his own personal flaws. That has no place in a real debate.

Don't you realize that you've just given sin and Satan credit for the glory of God.

No sir.

I need you to explain to me how God gets honor from creatures for His mercy and grace without sin.

I need you to explain to me how Christ receives the reward of his suffering without sin.

I need you to explain to me how there is sin if God never intended for sin to be.


I need you to explain to me why you want God NOT to receive the fullest praise possible by the manifestation of the FULLNESS of his love at Calvary.

There has never been a greater display of love and God built the universe for it.

I need you to explain to me how you would have built the universe better than God has if you had been God instead of him.

I guess it is beyond you. Because with out sin there would have been no need of the suffering of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And no reward for it. And no indescribable display of the infinite love of God visible in the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son.

Therefore no need of grace.

Would you prefer a universe where God could not display grace??

Would you prefer that Christ NOT receive the reward of suffering forever???

Do you think that this present world is God's plan B? That God REALLY wanted sin to never exist?????

There would have always been peace, safety and contentment in God's presence for ever from the beginning to infinity.

And never any Redeemer displaying the depths and heights of the love of God; never any Lamb receiving the praises of a multitude which no man can number forever.

We would have been born into innocence and stayed that way for ever. Sin doesn't deserve the credit you give it.

I have given no credit to sin, so there is no need to respond further to this statement.

It was mans dominion
( Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. )

and man gave in to Satan by commiting sin and becomming Satan's slave. There by giving rule to Satan. Satan became the ruler of men's hearts. We are Satan's willing slaves until we are born again. Doesn't the world for the most part lay in his hands because of his evil influence over man?
MB

Why do you suppose in this fallen world Satan had to ask God's permission to afflict Job?

The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. That is what Scripture teaches.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Do you actually believe God wanted Satan to rebel against him?

Satan did rebell against him, so yes.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. No one is denying that God is not God, although the word "sovereign" does not appear in my Bible even once. However, the word "freewill" occurs 17 times.

Check out the words predestine destine and elect or election.

Are you saying God is not sovereign? Do you believe he knows the future?

What you are doing is believeing a contradiction. If God decrees temptation, then he is the cause of that temptation.

That's not true at all. Being the decreeer of a sin isn't the same as the tempter of the sinner. Read the story of David and the census in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21.

You can't say God decrees every event that happens and then say God is not responsible for every event that happens, that is an illogical impossibility.

Read Genesis 50:20. God is responsible for all of the good that happens, the evil that happens is the fault of man. If man wasn't evil then evil wouldn't happen. God has decreed these things for the benefit of his elect according to Romans 9. That is for good.

Natural disasters are the natural result of a cursed world. Sin brought disharmony and disorder to the universe, this is what causes storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc...

Isaiah 45:7

God decreed that Jesus would die for our sins, but he did not cause the Jews to crucify him. Again, James says God never tempts any man to sin.

temptation is not a decree, as shown earlier. If you don;t believe the men who killed Christ were predestined to do that by God then you don;t believe Acts 4:27-28

I perfectly agree that God is sovereign, but not in the way you understand. I believe God can allow his creatures free will and still bring about his purposes.

Certainly not libertarian free will.

This passage does not teach God will add grief to our life, it teaches the opposite. Why did you leave out verse 2?

I didn;t say it did. I just pointed out that it says to trust in the Lord. That means regardless if there is grief or not. Rest assured there will be. DO I really need to show you that from scripture?

 

[Amy.G]

You are right.

But it does not change the fact that sin IS necessary if he is to manifest his love to the FULLEST.

What????? God's love is and always has been manifested to the fullest because He IS love.

Sin did not make God love more fully. His love is perfect apart from sin or humans or animals or any other thing.

 

[psalms109:31]

Light

God ordained Lucifer to be a cherub a guardian. He appointed, anointed until wickedness was found in Him. Light of God wasn't taking from him he turned away from the light, the direction God intended for him. God did use him for the good of those who love God. God has a awesome ability to turn evil that comes from their own evil desire not the desire of God for the good of those who love Him.

Lamentations 3:
22 Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed,
for his compassions never fail.
23 They are new every morning;
great is your faithfulness.
24 I say to myself, “The LORD is my portion;
therefore I will wait for him.”

25 The LORD is good to those whose hope is in him,
to the one who seeks him;
26 it is good to wait quietly
for the salvation of the LORD.
27 It is good for a man to bear the yoke
while he is young.

28 Let him sit alone in silence,
for the LORD has laid it on him.
29 Let him bury his face in the dust—
there may yet be hope.
30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him,
and let him be filled with disgrace.

31 For no one is cast off
by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
so great is his unfailing love.
33 For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to anyone.

 

[MB]

This kind of stuff is unhelpful in a debate. You'd do better to stick with the issues than addressing the person and what you perceive to be his own personal flaws. That has no place in a real debate.

Did you understand the term.

No sir.

I need you to explain to me how God gets honor from creatures for His mercy and grace without sin.

What makes you so sure that God needs anything from man. It isn't that God has a need it's that man because of his weakness needs God.

I need you to explain to me how Christ receives the reward of his suffering without sin.

I'm sure that my Lord would have rather the whole thing never happened other wise He would not have asked the Father to take that cup from Him.

I need you to explain to me how there is sin if God never intended for sin to be.

Your misunderstanding here is because you have the wrong definition of the word Sovereignty. Sovereignty does not mean absolute rule of every thought and every single thing under the sun. That is totalitarianism.
I have already answered your question here. God gave man dominion and man lost it to Satan and became his slave

I need you to explain to me why you want God NOT to receive the fullest praise possible by the manifestation of the FULLNESS of his love at Calvary.

What makes you think this is something I want I never said that.

There has never been a greater display of love and God built the universe for it.

Half true;
Christ laying down His life is the greatest display of Love. Although the universe was built for man to live in.

I need you to explain to me how you would have built the universe better than God has if you had been God instead of him.

What makes you think I would want to take God's place?

And no reward for it. And no indescribable display of the infinite love of God visible in the sacrifice of God's only begotten Son.

I'm convinced that you have no clue what God actually did or of the why of, all that He did it for.

Would you prefer a universe where God could not display grace??

I would prefer that man had never sinned in the first place.

Would you prefer that Christ NOT receive the reward of suffering forever???

I would prefer that man had never sinned in the first place.

Do you think that this present world is God's plan B? That God REALLY wanted sin to never exist?????

No I believe that man sinned

And never any Redeemer displaying the depths and heights of the love of God; never any Lamb receiving the praises of a multitude which no man can number forever.

No sin, No need of being redeemed.

I have given no credit to sin, so there is no need to respond further to this statement.

Then why keep on.

Why do you suppose in this fallen world Satan had to ask God's permission to afflict Job?

Simply because Job already belonged to God.

The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. That is what Scripture teaches.

It also teaches even before that, that God gave man dominion over it. Just in case you don't understand the term "dominion" it means rule.
MB

 

[webdog]

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.

So you will NOT answer the simple question based on YOUR view?

Prophet Webdog strikes again.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

So you will NOT answer the simple question based on YOUR view?

Prophet Webdog strikes again.

What's your view?

 

[Skandelon]

I have defined it. Either you are being dishonest or you are not keeping up. I defined it in the previous thread in which we were discussing this matter.

Yes, and then you acknowledged that you do affirm a "permissive decree" to which I asked you to clarify several times, but .... nothing.

There are different types of decrees Luke and when you make ambiguous statements such as you did in that other post one must ask you to explain your intent every time because you are about as difficult to pin down as jello.

 

[Skandelon]

Right. Each man fulfills God's purpose for him and does his part in God's plan.

So, when James says God doesn't even tempt men to evil, you interpret that to mean that God is the one who predetermined the temptation, the intent of the tempter, the desires of the tempted and ultimately every aspect of the decision being made...

Ok, sure... I'll let objective readers judge that one for themselves.

Romans 9:19-23
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

Who is making this objection in Paul's mind?

1. The non-elect reprobate predetermined to hell?

OR

2. The temporarily hardened Jew, who God has held out his hands to all day (Rm 10:21) and who though hardened now, might be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14) if they leave their unbelief (Rm 11:21)?

21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Who is Paul referring to as "the same lump?"

1. All of humanity?

OR

2. Israel. Which God has chosen a Remnant from for "noble purposes" (like Paul for apostleship) and the rest of Israel who remain hardened in their rebellion (common use)?

Reprobates exist to make the riches of God's glory known to the Elect.

Are these the same "reprobates" Paul begin the chapter speaking of as his fellow countrymen who he loved so much that he would wished himself accursed for their sakes? Are they the same countrymen being cut off but who Paul anticipates might be provoked to envy and saved?

The problem with you interpretation of Paul is that you don't seem to take into account the actual historical context of what is going on.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What????? God's love is and always has been manifested to the fullest because He IS love.

Sin did not make God love more fully. His love is perfect apart from sin or humans or animals or any other thing.

I'd have to agree with you there. The Lord has always been merciful. It is His nature to be merciful. He does manifest who He is most clearly in Christ Jesus.

But love has always existed within the Trinity. God never had need of anything, still has need of nothing, and never will need anything. He was perfect and complete in Himself, is, and ever will be.

 

[DHK]

Half true;
Christ laying down His life is the greatest display of Love.

Since you haven't lived in eternity past you wouldn't know that.
What is the character of God? The very essence of God is love; perfect love. Nothing can be greater than the one who is absolute perfect love. As great as the sacrifice of Christ was, it can't be greater than God Himself, He who is love.

 

[Robert Snow]

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.

Talk is cheap! Maybe if your wife, daughter, or other close relative were raped or tortured and murdered you would see the foolishness of your twisted doctrine. I hope this doesn't happen to you, but like I said, talk is cheap!

 

[Robert Snow]

God does not need sin in order to be glorified.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


God's glory includes all His attributes such as mercy, peace, love, truth, justice. He IS all these things. He did not become these things because of sin.

If sin showed the glory of God, He would command us to sin. But instead He commands us to sin NOT.

This just shows another glaring error in Luke's twisted view of God!

 

[Osage Bluestem]

So, when James says God doesn't even tempt men to evil, you interpret that to mean that God is the one who predetermined the temptation, the intent of the tempter, the desires of the tempted and ultimately every aspect of the decision being made...

Here is the answer Vincent Cheung gives to the James 1:13 objection:

It does not affirm or deny whether God is the
author of sin – it does not address the topic at all, but its concerns are completely
different. It just tells you that God is not the tempter, which is altogether different from
saying that God is not the author of sin.
That is, if God directly causes you to sin, it does make him the "author" of sin (at least in
the sense that people usually use the expression), but the "sinner" or "wrongdoer" is still
you. Since sin is the transgression of divine law, for God to be a sinner or wrongdoer in
this case, he must decree a moral law that forbids himself to be the author of sin, and then
when he acts as the author of sin anyway, he becomes a sinner or wrongdoer.
But unless this happens, for God to be the author of sin does not make him a sinner or
wrongdoer. The terms "author," "sinner," "wrongdoer," and "tempter" are relatively
precise – at least precise enough to be distinguished from one another, and for God to be
the "author" of sin says nothing about whether he is also a "sinner," "wrongdoer," or a
"tempter." And for one not to be a wrongdoer by definition means that he has not done
wrong. Therefore, even if God is the author of sin, it does not automatically follow that
there is anything wrong with it, or that he is a wrongdoer.
However, this is not to distance God from evil, for to "author" the sin implies far more
control over the sinner and the sin than to merely tempt. Whereas the devil (or a person's
lust) may be the tempter, and the person might be the sinner, it is God who directly and
completely controls both the tempter and the sinner, and the relationship between them.
And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil
spirits to tempt (1 Kings 22:19–23) and to torment (1 Samuel 16:14–23, 18:10, 19:9). But
in all of this, God is righteous by definition.
The verse is telling you that when you deal with temptation, you must directly address
your lust, and not just blame God and then do nothing, or remain in your sin. Read all of
James 1 and see if this is not his obvious emphasis.

Link: http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf

Who is making this objection in Paul's mind?

1. The non-elect reprobate predetermined to hell?

OR

2. The temporarily hardened Jew, who God has held out his hands to all day (Rm 10:21) and who though hardened now, might be provoked to envy and saved (Rm 11:14) if they leave their unbelief (Rm 11:21)?

Not necessarily either, it is any person who wonders why God still finds fault in one he has predestined for damnation.

Who is Paul referring to as "the same lump?"

1. All of humanity?

OR

2. Israel. Which God has chosen a Remnant from for "noble purposes" (like Paul for apostleship) and the rest of Israel who remain hardened in their rebellion (common use)?

Both elect and reprobates. Your multiple choice questions don't cover the topic at hand.

Are these the same "reprobates" Paul begin the chapter speaking of as his fellow countrymen who he loved so much that he would wished himself accursed for their sakes? Are they the same countrymen being cut off but who Paul anticipates might be provoked to envy and saved?

Some are.

The problem with you interpretation of Paul is that you don't seem to take into account the actual historical context of what is going on.

Indeed I do. I apply the historical gramatical hermeneutic. There is the historical context side and the spiritual side. The spiritual side is the point of the writings as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'd have to agree with you there. The Lord has always been merciful. It is His nature to be merciful. He does manifest who He is most clearly in Christ Jesus.

But love has always existed within the Trinity. God never had need of anything, still has need of nothing, and never will need anything. He was perfect and complete in Himself, is, and ever will be.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Since you haven't lived in eternity past you wouldn't know that.
What is the character of God? The very essence of God is love; perfect love. Nothing can be greater than the one who is absolute perfect love. As great as the sacrifice of Christ was, it can't be greater than God Himself, He who is love.

Christ was God in human form on earth, thus it was God who laid down his life. There is no greater love than laying down one's life for others. I am going to start another thread on the weak Christ. It is an area, I believe, Calvinist totally ignore.

 

[Skandelon]

Here is the answer Vincent Cheung gives to the James 1:13 objection:

So Vincent believes as you that when James says God doesn't even tempt men to evil, its means that God is the one who predetermined the temptation, the intent of the tempter, the desires of the tempted and ultimately every aspect of the decision being made...

I'll let objective readers decide that for themselves. But, I think the intent is clearly not this...

Not necessarily either, it is any person who wonders why God still finds fault in one he has predestined for damnation.

That is the problem. You think the phrase "I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy" refers to the elect individuals predestined to heaven and the phrase "I will harden whom I will hardened" refers to the non-elect reprobated predestined to Hell. But a simply reading of the entire context quickly reveals that is not Paul's intent.

He begins expressing his deep love for this so-called Hardened Jews and he ends the chapter with a great summary of his intent, which was: "30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Which clearly means that Israel, as a whole, is being hardened in their rebellion, while Gentiles are being shown mercy. Yes, there are individual Jews, like Paul, who though out of the same lump (Israel) was formed for the noble purpose of apostleship while most of the rest of his countrymen are being temporarily hardened. Paul clearly believes these same hardened Jews might be provoked and come to salvation and that they might "leave their unbelief" and be "grafted in again." (Rm 11:14-25). So, obviously Paul never intended to say those being hardened or "bound over to their disobedience" are certainly condemned. As Paul concludes the chapter: "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He might show mercy to them all."

Both elect and reprobates. Your multiple choice questions don't cover the topic at hand.

The choice "all humanity" does cover the option "both elect and reprobates?" Doesn't that pretty much cover everyone?

Some are.

If some of those he referred to as being hardened might be saved then they couldn't be the non-elect predestined to hell that you presume. In other words, "being hardened" can't mean "certainly condemned," as you seemed to assert. It can only mean, as I have explained, that they are temporarily blinded, but that they too might be saved in time. As Paul says, God is showing mercy to all, even those he was currently hardening.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Wow, James 1:13-15 cuts the ground right out from under the Calvinist. Wow!


James 1:13-15 Don't let anyone under pressure to give in to evil say, "God is trying to trip me up." God is impervious to evil, and puts evil in no one's way. The temptation to give in to evil comes from us and only us. We have no one to blame but the leering, seducing flare-up of our own lust. Lust gets pregnant, and has a baby: sin! Sin grows up to adulthood, and becomes a real killer. [The Message]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. [KJV]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. [NIV]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No point in quoting other translations. WOW!

 

[Skandelon]

Wow, James 1:13-15 cuts the ground right out from under the Calvinist. Wow!


James 1:13-15 Don't let anyone under pressure to give in to evil say, "God is trying to trip me up." God is impervious to evil, and puts evil in no one's way. The temptation to give in to evil comes from us and only us. We have no one to blame but the leering, seducing flare-up of our own lust. Lust gets pregnant, and has a baby: sin! Sin grows up to adulthood, and becomes a real killer. [The Message]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. [KJV]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. [NIV]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No point in quoting other translations. WOW!

To be fair you should also quote the CAV, (Calvinistic Altered Version)

Here it is:

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me," For God is not just tempting you, He has decreed the tempters intent to tempt you, he decreed your intent to fall into the temptation and causally determined your choice to sin, so that you could not have willingly done otherwise. But, lets just say for the sake of avoiding the appearance of divine culpability that its really MEN who are responsible because after all they are doing what they desire. Don't worry about the fact that what men desire is predetermined by God so that it could not have been otherwise, that is not important, just say "men are acting according to their desire" so as to make people think you affirm human responsibility. Men are born dead."

 

[Fred's Wife]

To be fair you should also quote the CAV, (Calvinistic Altered Version)

Here it is:

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me," For God is not just tempting you, He has decreed the tempters intent to tempt you, he decreed your intent to fall into the temptation and causally determined your choice to sin, so that you could not have willingly done otherwise. But, lets just say for the sake of avoiding the appearance of divine culpability that its really MEN who are responsible because after all they are doing what they desire. Don't worry about the fact that what men desire is predetermined by God so that it could not have been otherwise, that is not important, just say "men are acting according to their desire" so as to make people think you affirm human responsibility. Men are born dead."

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: