Calvinism/origin of sin 2

[MB]

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.

I agree but I was speaking of an open act of Love for me and you. Even Christ said there is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend. Christ willingly layed down His life for me and you who were strangers. To save us from the effects of sin. There is nothing greater than God in anything and since Christ and the Father are one. Well what can I say there simply is nothing greater than God.
MB

 

[DHK]

I agree but I was speaking of an open act of Love for me and you. Even Christ said there is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend. Christ willingly layed down His life for me and you who were strangers. To save us from the effects of sin. There is nothing greater than God in anything and since Christ and the Father are one. Well what can I say there simply is nothing greater than God.
MB

Well, I think we will just have to agree on that one.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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!

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


Quote:

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

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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...
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."

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

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.

The passage isn't talking about universalism. Your post doesn't make any sense, unless you are affirming you are indeed a universalist.

 

[Skandelon]

The passage isn't talking about universalism. Your post doesn't make any sense, unless you are affirming you are indeed a universalist.

Uh?

How do you figure?

 

[Luke2427]

I am at the Ligonier Conference in Orlando, Fl getting ready to be inspired and charged and spiritually fed by some of the greatest, most Christ centered minds in the country.

My posts will be sporadic at best for the next few days.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Sure God is complete in and of himself.

Nothing can make him anything more or less than he always is.

But in order for him to SHOW the greatness of those attributes which cannot be improved, some things must exist.

For instance, God can show his love without sin, but God cannot show the awesome extent of it apart from Calvary. Calvary love is the manifestation of the amazing depth and height of the love of God.

There can be no mercy without sin. There can be love, but not MERCY which is the startling manifestation of the extent of God's love.

That CANNOT exist without sin.

There can be no saving grace without sin. No grace to be bestowed and experienced and praised forever. There can be LOVE but no display of it's unfathomable depths unless sin existed.

There can be no Redeemer receiving the praises of the redeemed forever.

The one True God is Sovereign over and in and through EVERYTHING that ever happens.

EVERYTHING happens according to his plan that he might manifest his glory and lavish his people with love that could only be shown in a world like the one we live in.

 

[DHK]

Sure God is complete in and of himself.

Nothing can make him anything more or less than he always is.

But in order for him to SHOW the greatness of those attributes which cannot be improved, some things must exist.

I know you are trying to be definitive Luke but it doesn't work.
God is complete in and of himself. Period.
There is no "But..."
You have just put a number of limitations on a limitless God. You have taken away from an all-sufficient, all powerful God.

The God of the Bible does not need your parameters. God is a God of grace and mercy. Period. Case closed. He is grace and mercy. He doesn't need mankind to prove that he is gracious and merciful. He was full of grace and mercy before the foundation of the world. His character never changes.

He is the same: yesterday, today, and forever.
"I am the Lord; I change not."

The flaws of Calvinism are very evident here. You believe that God NEEDS sin and sinful mankind for God to be God. God was already God before the world was created, and He hasn't changed, and never will.

Nothing more is needed to exist for him to declare His glory
He is God. He needs nothing, not man, not sin. He will be glorified with or without man. He doesn't "need" man.

 

[Luke2427]

There can be no mercy for sinners if there is no sin.

There can be no saving grace if there is no sin to save sinners from.

There can be no suffering Lamb to receive the reward of his suffering forever pleasing his father by dying for sin and receiving the praises of a multitude which no man can number without sin.

To argue otherwise is quite silly.

 

[MB]

There can be no mercy for sinners if there is no sin.

Men wouldn't need mercy if there were no sin

There can be no saving grace if there is no sin to save sinners from.

Salvation isn't needed with out sin.

There can be no suffering Lamb to receive the reward of his suffering forever pleasing his father by dying for sin and receiving the praises of a multitude which no man can number without sin.

Why do you insist that Christ has a need to suffer for man when with out sin Christ would have won the battle before it ever started.

To argue otherwise is quite silly.

Well worse that being silly is to assume that God lust after the praises of men and is why He had to be crucified.
MB

 

[Crabtownboy]

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

Quote:
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

I agree, from a freewill perspective God is never a tempter. But from a Calvinist stance, as we see on this board, by preordaining evil and sin God is the cause of evil by that pre-ordination. I reject this view.

By insisting that God predestined man to sin and commit evil the Calvinist makes God a party to sin and evil. I believe in law this is guilty by being an accomplice. I reject that view.

 

[Luke2427]

Men wouldn't need mercy if there were no sin




Salvation isn't needed with out sin.

Why do you insist that Christ has a need to suffer for man when with out sin Christ would have won the battle before it ever started.

IWell worse that being silly is to assume that God lust after the praises of men and is why He had to be crucified.
MB

you would rob God of his right to show the depths of his love. By saving sinners thru the sacrifice of his son God displays the unfathomable depths of his love. God does not lust for the praises of men, but he certainly does have a great Passion for his glory. Any student of the scriptures knows this.

 

[DHK]

you would rob God of his right to show the depths of his love. By saving sinners thru the sacrifice of his son God displays the unfathomable depths of his love. God does not lust for the praises of men, but he certainly does have a great Passion for his glory. Any student of the scriptures knows this.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:18-21)

God is the potter. We are the clay. We cannot complain, demand, order God to do anything. He is the Creator. He has every right to do anything that he pleases including sending the whole human race into hell. And he still would be glorified in doing so.

You seem to be as the Romans were questioning the goodness of an Almighty and Sovereign God who has power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor--or even to make them all unto dishonor, and be perfectly glorified in doing so. Who am I to question God. You are in no place to put limitations on God and say that: God cannot do this, UNLESS....

 

[Crabtownboy]

you would rob God of his right to show the depths of his love. By saving sinners thru the sacrifice of his son God displays the unfathomable depths of his love. God does not lust for the praises of men, but he certainly does have a great Passion for his glory. Any student of the scriptures knows this.

Again I ask, what kind of father would you be if you beat and hurt your children so you could show how merciful you are in caring for their aches, bruises, and broken bones?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I agree, from a freewill perspective God is never a tempter. But from a Calvinist stance, as we see on this board, by preordaining evil and sin God is the cause of evil by that pre-ordination. I reject this view.

By insisting that God predestined man to sin and commit evil the Calvinist makes God a party to sin and evil. I believe in law this is guilty by being an accomplice. I reject that view.

I believe that Romans 9:11-23 teach that the destruction of wickedness is to the glory of God and to the benefit of the elect.

 

[Luke2427]

Again I ask, what kind of father would you be if you beat and hurt your children so you could show how merciful you are in caring for their aches, bruises, and broken bones?

Two things:
I am not God and neither are you. It does not matter what we perceive to be mercy based on our treatment of our children. His ways are above ours and they are past finding out.
Secondly, your analogy ie not applicable. We do not portray a God who beats people to show his mercy. That is silly.
We declare a God who let people fall and catches many of them to show his mercy.
If you are a Christian at all you have to believe that much.
The difference is you believe God had no purpose in the fall. To us, that notion is ludicrous.

 

[MB]

you would rob God of his right to show the depths of his love. By saving sinners thru the sacrifice of his son God displays the unfathomable depths of his love. God does not lust for the praises of men, but he certainly does have a great Passion for his glory. Any student of the scriptures knows this.

Ah ! The force doesn't seem to be with you today Luuuke. I believe DHK and Crabtownboy showed you the truth. God doesn't need anything. We need God. I know I'm God dependant. Other wise I wouldn't have the strength to survive. God loves you Luke. Why not agree with scripture instead.
MB

 

[J.D.]

Again I ask, what kind of father would you be if you beat and hurt your children so you could show how merciful you are in caring for their aches, bruises, and broken bones?

What kind of God allows people that are not His children to beat and murder His own son in order to save the murderers from their sins? An unfathomably merciful God!

 

[Luke2427]

Ah ! The force doesn't seem to be with you today Luuuke. I believe DHK and Crabtownboy showed you the truth. God doesn't need anything. We need God. I know I'm God dependant. Other wise I wouldn't have the strength to survive. God loves you Luke. Why not agree with scripture instead.
MB

MB, it is you who have adopted this new, nameless, man-made theology which cannot be supported in Scripture and no one believed until 75 years ago.


No one is saying that God needs anything. That's silly.

But God WANTED to SHOW his greatness. He wanted to manifest and have a people experience his majesty and the wonder of his love and holiness.

In order to show the DEPTHS of his love, Calvary type love, CALVARY was necessary.

This is SO simple!

Without sin there is no Calvary.

Romans 5:8 "But God shows his love to us in that while we were yet SINNERS Christ died for us."

How does God SHOW his love, MB?

By dying for sinners.

It is nothing but stubbornness for you to keep arguing otherwise.

You do not have a case. You have no Scripture.

Will you believe the Word of God or rebel against it? That is where you and Crabtown are at this point.

Why is there such a thing as grace? Can you answer that?

I'll give you a hint. Look in Ephesians 2.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Two things:
I am not God and neither are you. It does not matter what we perceive to be mercy based on our treatment of our children. His ways are above ours and they are past finding out.

That is a huge cop-our on your part. God and Christ, the example we are to use for our own life. So the analogy is applicable.

Secondly, your analogy ie not applicable. We do not portray a God who beats people to show his mercy. That is silly.

Only because Calvinists refuse to carry their beliefs to their logical conclusion. I am not sure why this is true. It may be that they are afraid to do so. It may be for some other reason.

We declare a God who let people fall and catches many of them to show his mercy.

What kind of father allows his children to 'fall' to show his mercy. This is anathema to what we see in the life of Christ ... the greatest revelation of God that we will ever have.

If you are a Christian at all you have to believe that much.
The difference is you believe God had no purpose in the fall. To us, that notion is ludicrous.

God can use any event to gradually bring about good. God would much rather that there was no fall as that would mean he would have a face-to-face relationship with all of us ... as he did with Adam and Eve before the fall.

Do you really believe he would rather have things as they are now, with all the evil in the world rather than the type of relationship he had with Adam and Eve.

Why in the world would he predestine evil ... and don't tell me it is to show how good and merciful he is. There is no logic in that stance.