Featured Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

glad4mercy · Sep 26, 2016

Internet Theologian said: ↑

I think if you were so 'COMPLETELY open minded to what (I) have to say' I wouldn't have received your scathing response.

I'd apologize for using Scripture (that isn't irrelevant and never is irrelevant btw) that directly applies to your inquiry but it's needless.

FTR I never assumed you were questioning God.

As far as attempting to help you understand Calvinism, and, that God uses both evil and good for his glory, I must use Scripture to do so, and that I have done in my previous post. We (Calvinists) always use Scripture to answer questions, address issues, offer insight.

Apologies also for not taking an exhaustive approach to answer you. Perhaps, if you want a detailed biblical response to God's decrees in this, on a Calvinist's perspective, you may find The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith of some help:

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc03.html

FTR when I stated not having it all figured out it, it was stated without a thought of you in it, and honestly I never thought you ever even implied such a thing. I apologize if you felt that is what I implied, as my answer may have done just that.

All we know is that God has decreed all things that come to pass, as He is Sovereign; Isaiah 46:10, therefore He has allowed evil.

One purpose for evil that I see is that in it God is glorified. Now, many tend to think that when God is glorified that it means 'get's joy over it, get's a kick out of it'. The way Scripture describes His glory is that it is a manifestation of His attributes. God is holy and good, full of mercy and love. He is glorified when He punishes evil, and a reminder of this was given to me when reading Joshua 6-7 today. In this passage we see the glory of God manifest in exercising His justice on Achan and his kin.

Now, in your second post in this thread you are asking for a Calvinist to do the following:

"The part I am seeking explanation for is the apparant contradiction (I say apparant because it only appears to be contradictory TO ME , not that it is contradictory) in your affirmation that God ordains EVERYTHING that comes to pass while similtaneously denying that He ordained acts of sin. Would you please clarify this for me?

I am not a hard headed person who wants to argue and doesnt want to listen.

To say that God ordains EVERYTHING and then say that He did not ordain sin is contradictory. If He did not ordain sin, He did not ordain everything.

So do you agree with Calvin and the Westminster Confession that God infallibly ordained WHATSOEVER comes to pass? Would this not include acts of sin?

I am not attacking Calvinism. I am trying to find the missing piece in my understanding of it. I know that God did not ordain sin, therefore I cannot believe He ordained EVERYTHING. Am I missing something? If so, what is it?"
##

- What I believe you are missing is that you expect a bonafide, succinct and articulate answer to a mystery that no one fully understands. I believe you also know that no Scripture completely explains it.

Then again, define 'ordain' a word you continue to use.

We tend to use the word 'decree' meaning basically 'to order, to order by authority'. Ordain tends to come across as 'endorse' to too many persons, and seems an implication during debates and discussion. Certainly God did not endorse it in that sense, and no Calvinist I know of believes that.

And by the way, lest we forget, it was man that chose evil, and it is mankind suffering the consequences, and God is just in allowing that.
Click to expand...

My response was not meant to be scathing, and of course you should use scripture. I am sola scriptura too. My point was that the Job passage did not apply to me, ecause I was not doing the thing that the passage was addressing. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, and if so, I apologize

Good post, BTW. Well put

Internet Theologian · Sep 26, 2016

glad4mercy said: ↑

My response was not meant to be scathing, and of course you should use scripture. I am sola scriptura too. My point was that the Job passage did not apply to me, ecause I was not doing the thing that the passage was addressing. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, and if so, I apologize
Click to expand...

No problem. What was Job doing that you weren't doing?

I'm right on with Job,and I see it the way he saw it; 'Who are we to not deserve evil at the allowance of God?' (pardon my paraphrasing) 'And in saying this Job didn't sin with his lips' (say that God ordains evil would fall in there). I think the answer to your inquiry lies within that passage.

Internet Theologian · Sep 26, 2016

I think we miss the point in all this too often. We lament the evil that happens to wicked, evil, rebellious God hating humans. We question God on it. Some are very offended by it and 'reject God' over it.

But, we should ask 'Why God would allow His Holy, Righteous, Sinless Son to suffer for OUR OWN SINS on a tree'?????!!!!!

No one seems to lament over that too much.

glad4mercy · Sep 26, 2016

Internet Theologian said: ↑

No problem. What was Job doing that you weren't doing?

I'm right on with Job,and I see it the way he saw it; 'Who are we to not deserve evil at the allowance of God?' (pardon my paraphrasing) 'And in saying this Job didn't sin with his lips' (say that God ordains evil would fall in there). I think the answer to your inquiry lies within that passage.
Click to expand...

The thing I was not doing that Job passage addresses is this...

I would never think that I could ever demand or deserve anything from God, and I have no business questioning the potter. I deserve absolute justice and condemnation, but because of Christ I receive wholly unmerited favor.

So it's not that I disagree with Job (of course not). I assumed you thought I was saying something that went against it, which of course I wasnt

glad4mercy · Sep 26, 2016

Internet Theologian said: ↑

I think we miss the point in all this too often. We lament the evil that happens to wicked, evil, rebellious God hating humans. We question God on it. Some are very offended by it and 'reject God' over it.

But, we should ask 'Why God would allow His Holy, Righteous, Sinless Son to suffer for OUR OWN SINS on a tree'?????!!!!!

No one seems to lament over that too much.
Click to expand...

Grace means we don't get what we deserve and we get what we don't deserve. My question was not an inquiry into God's Justice (which is unquestionable). It was an inquiry into the accuracy of the statement regarding "God ordaining all things". Now that the word "ordain" has been clearly defined, I have no issues with the statement.

kyredneck · Sep 26, 2016

SovereignGrace said: ↑

Satan was already in the Garden? Please expound. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Nah. You tell me what makes you believe that he wasn't already in the garden.

Iconoclast · Sep 26, 2016

glad4mercy said: ↑

Agreed, but still does not answer the question above. But I will do more reading on the subject
Click to expand...

From Calvinism /Arminianism;

THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE AND POSSIBLE ANSWERS
The “problem of evil” can be stated in the following terms: “How can evil exist in a universe created and governed by an all–powerful, benevolent [inherently and completely good] God?” The possible answers, according to human reasoning, are:
• If evil exists (and it does as a sad and awful reality), then there is no omnipotent [all–powerful], benevolent God—the argument of the atheist.
• Evil exists, and therefore, if God exists, he must be either limited in his power or arbitrary in his moral character. The former is the argument of the Pelagian or Arminian; the latter, the argument of those who espouse a non–biblical [pagan] concept of God.
• Evil exists, therefore there is more than one God, or there are equal forces [good and evil] in conflict. This is the non–biblical [pagan] argument of those who would posit a dualism (a “good god” and “bad god” or opposing equal forces or
466
principles of both good and evil), or a polytheism in conflict for control of the universe.1231
Evil does not exist, except as an illusion in our human thinking—the view of some western cults and Eastern religions (e.g., Christian Science, Buddhism). This would make any ultimate distinction between good and evil arbitrary, and thus deny the moral self–consistency of the Divine character.
Evil exists as a mystery, independent of God, who remains to a limited degree powerful and benevolent. This is the inconsistent argument of some (including Pelagians and Arminians), who attempt to deliver God from the charge of being the “author of sin” and yet seek to retain his goodness.1232

• Evil exists in the universe of an omnipotent, benevolent God, who is completely sovereign over it and uses it for his own glory and the highest good—the argument of the consistent Calvinist.
GOD IS SOVEREIGN OVER EVIL: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The last view—that God is absolutely sovereign over both natural and moral evil,1233 and uses evil for his own glory and the highest good—is the only view that can be consistently aligned to the teaching of Scripture. Every other view, deriving from sinful [incapacitated by the noetic effects of sin and willful rebellion against God and his truth] humanistic reasoning, and so calling God and his actions into question, seeks to point out an incoherence in the Christian system. These views either deny God and evil, or limit God • •
1231 This is the thinking of some professing Christians when they reduce their concept of God to the level of the devil, making them equals—a pagan, dualistic concept. Such [non–] thinking is present in such statements as, “God casts his vote, the devil casts his vote, and now it’s up to you to cast your vote,” when referring to the election of sinners to salvation. Such talk is utterly irrational. It is to hold a concept of God that is simply not scriptural, for the Word reveals that God is absolutely sovereign, even over the evil acts of men—and Scripture is the ultimate authority. 1232 Some of this group hold that God is either working in a utilitarian fashion as best he can, or that he merely foresaw evil and its results, but was not able to prevent them; or that there are some situations brought about by morally free agents that even God did not foresee. While the latter two are somewhat extreme, the idea that God merely foresaw or foreknew evil would not remove culpability from God. If God foresaw what would happen and then laid his plans accordingly, then he could have prevented sins, but evidently chose not to do so. Thus, God would be ultimately responsible for sin by allowing it, yet not controlling it for the highest good and his glory. Further, if God merely foresaw evil as a certainty—and it must have been certain for God to foresee it as such in the biblical sense—then God himself could not have prevented sin. Sin would have existed and been determined by a force outside God. He would thus finitely exist within a “universe” over which he exercised no ultimate control, a “universe” controlled in the final sense by an atheistic determinism! 1233 Natural evil is evil that occurs in the realm of nature (calamities such as floods, famine, disease, suffering, earthquakes and pestilence). Moral evil is evil or sin that occurs because of the wickedness of man against man (e.g., wars, rapes, torture, murders, hatred, deceit, theft, destruction, etc.). 467
and seek to bring him down to the finite level and destroy his moral self–consistency—and thus any sufficient or consistent basis for morality.1234
The truth of the sovereignty of God over evil may be clarified by the following considerations and implications:
The existence of evil in a universe created and governed by a benevolent God is not incoherent if God has a morally sufficient reason for this evil to exist. This “problem” is more psychological than logical or philosophical.1235 Man would rather call God and his actions into question than submit himself in complete trust, even to a God who is benevolent in the context of his righteousness.
As finite creatures, we are temporally limited in our thinking to the present and the past. When considering the problem of evil, one must take into account the reality of time. What might be considered as evil in the context of past or present reality may later prove to be great blessing or to result in such. This was certainly true of all the evil realities and events that conspired in the providence of God in exalting Joseph to become the prime minister of Egypt (e.g., his being spoiled by his father, the envy and hatred of his brothers, his being sold into slavery, the attempted seduction by Potiphar’s wife, his imprisonment, and the forgetfulness of Pharaoh’s cup–bearer, etc.). None of these things were good in themselves—each was undoubtedly evil—but they all “worked together for good”. Such good may or may not be seen in this life, but may await the unveiling of eternity (Rom. 8:28–31).1236
God is good, yet he ordains evil deeds. We know that these truths are compatible, for Scripture teaches both and God cannot deny himself...God can foreordain evil only if he himself is good, for in Scripture “evil” is “evil” only by contrast with the goodness of God. God is truly good only if the evil in the world is foreordained by him, for only if evil is fully controlled by God can we be

Such a view does not take all the mystery out of the problem of evil. God is infinite, and so are his wisdom, power and purpose. We are finite, and simply cannot comprehend all that is implied in this profound issue. Why God, who is absolutely morally self–consistent, should ordain evil, must to a given degree remain a mystery to finite beings. Such matters must be approached by a faith that rests in a wise and morally self–consistent God.
The Scriptures teach that God is both benevolent [absolutely good] and also that he ordains evil deeds. The following quotation is in accord with the testimony of Scripture and deserves to be carefully studied: • • • •
1234 This is often the approach by the secular college or university professor in his challenge to students who are professing Christians, but doctrinally unsound and inconsistent in their faith. He seeks to destroy both their faith and their basis for morality. 1235 This issue is fully dealt with by Greg Bahnsen in Always Ready. Texarkana: Covenant Media Foundation, 1996. pp. 165–174. He maintains that “The Problem of Evil” is actually a personal expression of a lack of faith. 1236 It is important to note that the truth of Romans 8:28 occurs in the context of eternity, and is not limited to this earthly life (cf. v. 28–31).
see pt2
Click to expand...

Iconoclast · Sep 26, 2016

pt2;

Further, the context contains the very worst that men can do to believers (v. 35–36). 468

confident that there is a good purpose in it, and only if there is a good purpose in it can we trust the overall good purpose of God.1237
God foreordains evil; he does not merely “permit” or “allow” it. Such wording as “God permits [allows] evil” is often used by theologians who are either seeking to avoid the idea that God is the culpable author of sin, or are using human language for want of expression.1238
• 3.
• God is not the author of evil in the sense that he himself is culpable [blameworthy] or tainted by sin. Such would be a denial of his inherent goodness. That God is not the author of sin may be clarified by the following considerations:
1. The Scriptures hold men fully responsible for their own sins, which would not and could not be true if God were the author of sin (Acts 2:23; Rom. 1:18–32; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; Jude 14–15; Rev. 20:11–13).
2. If God were to charge men with sins for which he were really responsible, then he would not and could not be just, indeed, he would be less than just—he himself would become a criminal, a sinner! Such would be absolutely unthinkable and unscriptural. Thus, the biblical reality of human culpability necessarily precludes God from being the author of sin.
Although God wills evil, it must not be imagined that he wills it in the same sense and manner that he wills what is righteous, holy and good. He ordains evil to exist and controls it, overruling it to the highest good and his glory (Psa. 145:17; Rom. 11:33–36; Rev. 4:11). He does not take pleasure in evil in a positive sense. Thus, it may be right for God to ordain what is not right for man to do and therefore wrong for God to command man to do under his preceptive will. The Dutch Theologian Herman Bavinck seeks to explain this truth by an illustration:
Because man is a rational, moral being, God does not treat him as if he were a stone or a log but deals with him and addresses him in accordance with his nature. Just as a father forbids his child to touch a sharp knife though he himself uses it without injury or damage, so God forbids us to sin though He himself is able to use and does use sin as a means of self–glorification.1239
• God ordains sin, but he does not command it. Sin exists as part of the Divine teleological purpose, but it is not forced upon men by necessity. Men cannot make God culpable for their own sin and breach of God’s preceptive will. They must, as moral, rational, responsible beings, bear the consequences of their own transgressions. God thus controls evil, but not in the sense that he rejoices or takes pleasure in it. To say that God does not control evil is to deny his omnipotence. To
1237 John M. Frame, “The Problem of Theological Paradox,” Foundations of Christian Scholarship, p. 321. 1238 Such language as “permit” or “allow” when used of God, although an understandable accommodation to human language and finiteness, might suggest that God is relative, i.e., there is an absolute above or beyond him to which he himself is either subject or against which he must contend (i.e., evil exists independently from God). Neither is true. 1239 Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, p. 240. 469

…God is not the author of sin. God has fore–ordained sin. He has fore–ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and sin has come to pass, and God’s purpose controls, limits, preserves and governs the universe even in the presence of this fact of sin….He does not himself sin. He does not condone sin. He does not constrain to sin. He does not induce to sin. He does not tempt to sin….Fore–ordination is not destructive of freedom; God has ordained freedom…fore–ordination is what establishes freedom…nothing can take away from the human being the liberty essential to moral responsibility, because God has fore–ordained the freedom of men at the point of moral decision–making…God fore–ordains their actions, but he fore–ordains them as free actions: as things they do by their own personal volition….I am free because God fore–ordained my freedom.1240
In the Great Theodicy of Romans 9,1241 the Apostle answers objections concerning the absolute sovereignty of God over the moral character and destiny of men. (His argument assumes three questions: Is God unfaithful [v. 6–13]? Is God unrighteous [v. 14–18]? Is God unjust [v. 19–29]?). He asserts that God is, indeed, absolutely sovereign in the spiritual, moral and ethical spheres, and that no one has the right to question the Divine prerogative or purpose.

say that he wills evil in the same sense as he does what is right and holy is to deny his righteousness and holiness. To say that he controls evil in such a way that men are relieved of their moral responsibility is to deny both their free moral agency and his essential nature. To say, however, that God ordains men to contradict his Law–Word through their own willful actions, and that he controls this for the ultimate good and glory of his eternal purpose, is to assert the absolute sovereignty of God over evil and yet preserve his wisdom, righteousness and holiness. Finite creatures must leave such mystery to the infinite God.
Donald Macleod seeks to put the matters of the foreordination of sin and human freedom in simple, yet profound statements, by asserting that God has fore–ordained both sin and human freedom:
NOTE: The above statement by Macleod must not be interpreted in the Arminian sense that “God created man with a free will and so cannot violate that will,” but in the sense that God created man as a free and responsible moral agent. God would not, yea, could not externally limit his own sovereignty in such a manner as to render himself morally incapacitated or even inconsistent. He would then cease to be God.
The absolute sovereignty and moral nature of God must lead to the conclusion that God is not the author of sin because he completely controls the evil of his moral creatures. God is the one great and incomprehensible “Absolute,” the ultimate source of all meaning. In the final analysis there is no true meaning apart from God. The created universe and every fact in it (being a created fact) derives its meaning from God and must be interpreted by him. Thus, evil itself must be and can only be • •
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

glad4mercy · Sep 27, 2016

Iconoclast said: ↑

pt2;
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

This is what I thought the Calvinistic position on "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass". Someone else said ordain means to permit or allow. That must have been a "semi-Calvinist or moderate Calvinist response. Thank you for the replies. I only had time to skim over it right now, but I will read them later.

JonC · Sep 27, 2016

glad4mercy said: ↑

This is what I thought the Calvinistic position on "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass". Someone else said ordain means to permit or allow. That must have been a "semi-Calvinist or moderate Calvinist response. Thank you for the replies. I only had time to skim over it right now, but I will read them later.
Click to expand...

I believe that some will make the distinction between "ordain" and "decree".

"Classic" or "Reformational" Arminanism also believes that "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass", the difference being whether God permits/allows (based on what He has foreseen) vs. determines by His will (all things happen not only in accordance to but because of God's will).

glad4mercy · Sep 27, 2016

JonC δοῦλος said: ↑

I believe that some will make the distinction between "ordain" and "decree".

"Classic" or "Reformational" Arminanism also believes that "God ordains whatsoever comes to pass", the difference being whether God permits/allows (based on what He has foreseen) vs. determines by His will (all things happen not only in accordance to but because of God's will).
Click to expand...

Yes, I basically have always held to the Classical Arminian explanation of it as stated by you. Blessings

TCassidy · Sep 27, 2016

glad4mercy said: ↑

Someone else said ordain means to permit or allow.
Click to expand...

You continue to fail to understand. "Ordain" is a context driven word. It can refer to a decree of God wherein he creates something directly and is solely responsible for it, or the permission God gives for people to rebel against Him and suffer the consequences, often as a warning to others.

And, as this has been explained to you at least 4 times now, and you still ignore or "fail to understand," I can't help but think there is an ulterior motive not included in the title of the thread: Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

glad4mercy · Sep 27, 2016

TCassidy said: ↑

You continue to fail to understand. "Ordain" is a context driven word. It can refer to a decree of God wherein he creates something directly and is solely responsible for it, or the permission God gives for people to rebel against Him and suffer the consequences, often as a warning to others.

And, as this has been explained to you at least 4 times now, and you still ignore or "fail to understand," I can't help but think there is an ulterior motive not included in the title of the thread: Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?
Click to expand...

I have been using the word in only one context. I do not have a problem or questiom with the way the word is used in other contexts. This whole time I have not changed the context of what I have been discussing, so it is not myself with a misunderstanding, but you

I understood your point the SECOND time you explained it. I even said that I was satisfied and agreed with your answer. But other Calvinists obviously do not hold the same view on God's Decree that you do. And most Arminians I know agree with the way you answered the question.

The way I see it, the way you answered the question you could be Calvinist or Armimian.

Go back and read the last post I replied to. Jon C Doulos was gving two views...one agreed on by Calvinists and Arminians and you and I, and another that was a different view. So I said that I agreed (as you do) with the former, but not necessarily with the latter

That's OK, because there are various degrees of Calvinism and various degrees of Arminianism

That said, I am in agreement with you on the topic, so I don't know why you insist on disagreeing with someone who agrees with you. No ulterior motive here. You just seem to have decided to argue with me over something that I already said I agree with you on.

TCassidy · Sep 27, 2016

glad4mercy said: ↑

I have been using the word in only one context.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. You can't force a single contextual understanding into every use of the word. And that is exactly what you are doing.

glad4mercy said: ↑

But other Calvinists obviously do not hold the same view on God's Decree that you do.
Click to expand...

Name one Calvinist who believes that God decreed evil and is the author and originator of sin. Has anyone in this thread made that statement? If so give me the number of the post.

glad4mercy · Sep 27, 2016

quote= And that is the problem. You can't force a single contextual understanding into every use of the word. And that is exactly what you are doing.

False. We have been discussing what it means that God ordained alll things, specifically focusing on the issue of what it means to ordain evil. So I was definiing the word as IT WAS BEING USED IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR DISCUSSION.

Just like I would define "spring" as a coiled wire in one context, a season in another, and a verb synonomous with jump in a third context.

quote-Name one Calvinist who believes that God decreed evil

Quote- The subject of the decree, or what is decreed. The catechism gives the answer, "whatsoever comes to pass", that is to say everything that happens in the world. The Bible is clear, that the decree involves all things, and extends to all events, (Samuel Willard)

http://www.puritansermons.com/willard/willard1.htm

So WHERE have I erred in my understanding of Calvinism, Sir?

As far as accusing Calvinists of charging God as the author of evil, I WOULD NEVER SAY SUCH A THING

I did not come on here to argue with administrators. I already said I agree with your position on the question, so why are we going back and forth?

glad4mercy · Sep 27, 2016

J Oliver Buswell- Sin must be within God's eternal decrees in some sense in which He is not the author of it . . . We must conclude then that within the decrees of God, there are decrees of permission of those things of which God Himself is not the author

Buswell said that sin is withn God's decrees, but God is not the author of it. Decrees of permission, but decrees nontheless.

Pretty much what you said, right or wrong?

InTheLight · Sep 27, 2016

TCassidy said: ↑

Name one Calvinist who believes that God decreed evil and is the author and originator of sin. Has anyone in this thread made that statement? If so give me the number of the post.
Click to expand...

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

glad4mercy · Sep 27, 2016

InTheLight said: ↑

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting those.
.
Here is a pretty good page on the issue. There is much in this writing I can agree with, and a couple things that go a little further than I am able to go, but it is a pretty good defense against the "God is the author of evil argument", which contrary to what T Cassiday says, I have never accused Calvinists of believing

(from The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Lorraine Boetner)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.v.iii.html

I think Calvin goes farther than some Calvinists do and some Calvinists go beyond what Calvin taught Just like some Arminians go way farther than Arminius and the Remonstrants did.

InTheLight · Sep 27, 2016

Does God decree that some Christians are non-Calvinist?
Or does God permit them to be non-Calvinists?

Either way, if Calvinism is true, why would God decree or allow it?

TCassidy · Sep 27, 2016

Yes, God permits sinners to sin. And he commands the consequences of that sin. And they are, ultimately, forced to serve Him, firstly as examples of the reprobate, and lastly when "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess."

But nowhere does that quote say that God is the author and originator of sin.

Featured Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

glad4mercy Active Member

Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

glad4mercy Active Member

glad4mercy Active Member

kyredneck Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

glad4mercy Active Member

JonC Moderator
Moderator

glad4mercy Active Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

glad4mercy Active Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

glad4mercy Active Member

glad4mercy Active Member

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

glad4mercy Active Member

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

Useful Searches

Featured Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

glad4mercy Active Member

Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

Internet Theologian Well-Known Member

glad4mercy Active Member

glad4mercy Active Member

kyredneck Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

glad4mercy Active Member

JonC Moderator Moderator

glad4mercy Active Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus Administrator

glad4mercy Active Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus Administrator

glad4mercy Active Member

glad4mercy Active Member

InTheLight Well-Known Member Site Supporter

glad4mercy Active Member

InTheLight Well-Known Member Site Supporter

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus Administrator

kyredneck Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

InTheLight Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator