convicted1
Guest
Seeing the previous thread rapidly nosedived, maybe we can pick up again, and discuss this graciously.
Okay...gooooooooooo....
Okay...gooooooooooo....
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A determined view of salvation or the RIGHT view, part deux
- Thread starter convicted1
- Start date
- Status
convicted1
Guest
What Brother Skandelon is referring to is what has been called the "absoluters". A few PBs and some Reformed Baptists hold to this view, but I'd venture a guess that they are the minority view...but I could be wrong.
If God predetermined everything that comes to pass, that would make God the Author of sin, no? However, He "desired" sin to a certain degree, no? Seeing how He could have stopped it and chose not to.
But God didn't make us as puppets either...
If God predetermined everything that comes to pass, that would make God the Author of sin, no? However, He "desired" sin to a certain degree, no? Seeing how He could have stopped it and chose not to.
But God didn't make us as puppets either...
Your first mistake is saying that God could have made a world without sin.
Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Jesus said sins or offences "must needs be". They are necessary, they cannot be avoided. Why?
I believe the answer is free will. God being moral and loving MUST give man free will and choice, and free and choice necessarily enables the possibility of sin. You can't have free will and choice without the possibility of sin.
So, your premise that God could have made a world without sin is error.
convicted1
Guest
God couldn't make a world w/o sin?? Really?? God, who can not sin, is unable to make a world w/o sin?? Wowzers...
You keep defending free will and that was the very thing that got us in this mess. It caused us to be born sinners. It caused us to be born with death snapping at our heels. Free will sends people to hell. Sovereign grace saves us from it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
You can read Willis, what do the words I highlighted in red say?
This is your problem, since you became a Calvinist, you only believe what Calvinists tell you to believe and you completely ignore what scripture says. Not wise.
I'm going to give you some help, Calvinism often departs from scripture.
convicted1
Guest
No. You stated God couldn't make a world w/o sin. He, who can not sin, does not tempt people with sin, can not make a world w/o sin? How's that?
He chose to make man upright with fallible bodies. He gave Adam free will and we're in this mess now. People keep defending free will like it's a "golden calf".....oh yeah it is, they worship it more than they do God. Free will keeps people away from God. Sovereign grace brings them to Him.
He chose to make man upright with fallible bodies. He gave Adam free will and we're in this mess now. People keep defending free will like it's a "golden calf".....oh yeah it is, they worship it more than they do God. Free will keeps people away from God. Sovereign grace brings them to Him.
I have to say I do not understand this logic. One does not automatically lead to the other.
Jesus is the one who said "it must needs be that offences come". Jesus is the one that said sin must occur Willis, not me. You can read, look in your own Bible, I have not wrested scripture in any way whatsoever.
Now, I might be mistaken as to why sin must occur, but I am not mistaken that Jesus said sin must occur. So this idea of yours that God could make a world without sin is error.
And what is the alternative view? You believe God could have made a world without sin (which this scripture I posted refutes) and therefore you assume God desired sin.
Must does not equal Can't
Actually, if God could have made a world without sin as Willis believes, then the logical conclusion is that God desired sin.
The trouble is that Willis's view contradicts scripture, Jesus said it "must needs be" that offences come. So, it was not possible for God to make a world without sin.
That naturally leads to the question, why? And I believe it is because God is love and therefore cannot compel people to love and believe in him. He MUST give them choice, and this choice makes the possibility of sin unavoidable, even for God.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Right, a person has to have a PhD to understand the words "must needs be"
Not at all...
But, you do need to have a bit of hermeneutic common sense, which is not being displayed in the statement you've made.
First, what do you do with the Genesis account that says that God made the world and everything in it and, as a statement of evaluation, called it "Very Good?"
Second, what do you do with Paul's statement in Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin...?
Obviously, the world was without sin before Adam's sin.
Further more, how, in the eternal Kingdom, will there be no more sin when the entire story line of scripture is a return to "Eden" where there was no sin before Adam's sin?
So, you're simply wrong in your assessment of Matthew 18. You're wrong because, as you've demonstrated myriad of times here, you have no knowledge of hermeneutics--how to read scripture.
It's unfortunate, but the situation is correctable--if you're willing to learn.
The Archangel
Logical conclusion to whom, who says that is the logical conclusion? Why do people believe that have a full understanding of what God can or should do? Very arrogant.
I don't know what you are saying here.
Jesus said "it must needs be that offences come". Sin HAS to happen, it cannot be avoided. God could not make a world without sin.
It is not arrogant, it is a logical conclusion. If God could have made a world without sin, and yet the world has sin, then you MUST conclude that God desired sin as Willis believes.
Willis's conclusion was correct, but his premise was error. Jesus shows that God could not make a world without sin. Read for yourself.
Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
This scripture is simple and straightforward.
No it is false that you must. In fact I would have never even thought such a thing. Where does logic like that even come from. It is arrogant because it assumes you know everything about God, what He can and cannot do, and what His motives must always be. Those things are not possible to know by man.
It is not arrogant when Jesus himself tells us that offences MUST NEEDS BE.
This scripture is not difficult to understand, Jesus is saying that offences HAVE TO happen. They MUST happen. I didn't say that, JESUS DID.
If that topples your little world, I feel sorry for you.
convicted1
Guest
You're saying God is unable...insert can not here...to make a world w/o sin. In Genesis 2, everything He made was "good" and "very good ", even Adam. Yet, in His "good" world, evil sprang forth from the serpent, satan.
God creates nothing but "good" and "very good"...
God gave Adam free will, and he blew it for himself, and everyone else...
Free will keeps people away from God...
Sovereign grace draws them to Him...
God creates nothing but "good" and "very good"...
God gave Adam free will, and he blew it for himself, and everyone else...
Free will keeps people away from God...
Sovereign grace draws them to Him...
It does not say why it must happen. It is only your assumption that must equals cant.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status