A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

[DHK]

That is not what the Bible teaches. It does not say that God ALLOWED the Assyrians. It simply does not.

He BROUGHT the Assyrians upon Israel.

And how did he do that? Put a large rope around them all and drag them forcefully there? He lassoed them like a cowboy would a calf and dragged them by force? How did God accomplish this?
He took away the protection that he surrounded Israel with, and allowed the Assyrians to come in and take them captive. He strengthened one and weakened the other. It was not by force.

The Bible does not say that he ALLOWED men to crucify Christ. It simply does not say that. You literally have to ABUSE the Words of God and CHANGE them to support this doctrine.

I take Scripture over your opinion any day.

Father take this cup from me, nevertheless thy will be done, not mine.
I lay my life down, I take it up again.
Put up thy sword Peter. Know ye not that I could have called 12 legions of angels from my heavenly father...

He laid aside some of his attributes like his divine omnipotence--the power to call 72,000 angels, and he went willingly to the cross. He allowed men to crucify him.
I give you Scripture. You give me opinion.

The Word of God says that they did "whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel DETERMINED before to do."

I never argued that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ was fore-ordained. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, as the Scripture says.
But nowhere does it say that the rape of a woman and consequent abortion was ordained before the foundation of the world. The two don't go together. You have made an illogical leap of faith.

I cannot debate this issue with anyone who is allowed to make the Bible say whatever they want. Words have meaning and the Word of God is very clear on these matters.

Who is the one making the Bible say whatever he wants??

 

[blackbird]

He laid aside some of his attributes like his divine omnipotence--the power to call 72,000 angels, and he went willingly to the cross. He allowed men to crucify him.

DHK---I agree that the Lord Jesus went willingly to the cross and that He allowed men to crucify Him

BUT

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus "laid aside some of His attributes like His divine omnipotence"????---------when the Bible is clear that Jesus "Knew the hearts of all men"??

And Jesus certainly COULD have called those "72 Grand"---why---at the very whisper of the word those angels could and would have obeyed the very call of the Omnipotent One

The simple fact is---Jesus didn't "lay aside" anything---merely He refused to use that divine power---He was God--He could do anything He wished but chose not to use that omnipotence-----He wasn't "powerless" to rescue Himself-----merely---He refused to use that power to rescue Himself!! He had other people in mind for rescue and redemption!!!

 

[Luke2427]

That is Job's take on it. That is not what the Scriptures say about God.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:12)
--These are the Lord's actual words, not simply Job's opinion. They are words of God giving Satan permission to afflict Job. Thus you are misinterpreting the Scripture.

So? I have not blasphemed God either, and have been in some difficult situations. This argument is a red herring. It is God that gave permission to Satan to afflict Job, and Job rightly did not blame God.

Satan is. Nothing occurs without God's permission. God allowed Satan to afflict Job. Job cannot understand all that goes on in heaven. His perception may be off a bit.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
--And so it was with Job; as it is with you also. Neither one of us have a complete understanding of the ways of God. Neither did Job.

God does not create evil, and did not create evil for Job. He allowed Satan to do evil to Job. It is terrible how you attribute evil to a just and holy God who will not countenance sin.

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? (Habakkuk 1:13)

No, I am not kidding. Nothing good comes from a terrorist. Or were in you in favor of the Muslim attack on the WTC. This was good in your sight. This was God's will, as they say it was Allah's will. Fatalism!

There are the words that Joseph used. They are accurately inspired or recorded by God.
There are the words that his brothers used--accurately inspired or recorded by God.
Then there is the will of God.
What was the will of God. It was not quite the way that Joseph expressed it. God used the circumstances created by his brothers that led to the imprisonment of Joseph and finally the exaltation of Joseph for His glory. That is more accurately put.
The brothers will still give account for their sin. They will stand before God and they will be judged. It was not God's will that they should inflict terror on their brother. All the evil brought upon Joseph was not God's will. Evil is never God's will. Having said that, God can use that evil, and turn it so that it will bring praise and honor to His name. But it still will be evil, and someone will still give account for it.

The wrath of man will praise Him.
All things work together for them that love him, for them that are called according to his purpose.

Are you the boss of God? God has need of nothing. He is God. If he needed anything at all he would not be God. Mark your words, "Egypt is required by God's words to Abraham..." God can use whatever means he wants.
As it was, Joseph suffered in Egypt and then was elevated to a position of authority. Suffering is a key element in the Christian life today. It is God's will that the Christian suffer (Phil. 1:29). What has that to do with this discussion. People have suffered ever since Adam was created. That is a fact of life. It is part of the curse.

God allows evil, not decrees evil. If he decrees or ordains evil, then God is no better than Allah. He allowed the brothers to badly treat Joseph. And those actions ultimately ended up in glorifying God. But God was not condoning the actions of the brothers. He is not the author of sin.

To say that God authors and ordains sin is in err. He doesn't. It is a fatalistic doctrine and puts God as vindictive and cruel.

This is exactly the case. In Islam it is called "Kismet," or fatalism. It is one of their basic tenets. I know you don't like the comparison. But that is what it is once you have God ordaining evil. He does not ordain or decree evil. He allows it.

I believe my position, not yours, is orthodox. God permits or allows evil as he did in Job's case. God's words, not Job's are accurate. For you to say that God determines and ordains evil beforehand is pure unadulterated fatalism. I do not believe in Open Theism. Neither do I believe in Fatalism or a fatalistic God.

The text neither says nor indicates ANYTHING about allowing.

 

[Luke2427]

And how did he do that? Put a large rope around them all and drag them forcefully there? He lassoed them like a cowboy would a calf and dragged them by force? How did God accomplish this?
He took away the protection that he surrounded Israel with, and allowed the Assyrians to come in and take them captive. He strengthened one and weakened the other. It was not by force.

I take Scripture over your opinion any day.

Father take this cup from me, nevertheless thy will be done, not mine.
I lay my life down, I take it up again.
Put up thy sword Peter. Know ye not that I could have called 12 legions of angels from my heavenly father...

He laid aside some of his attributes like his divine omnipotence--the power to call 72,000 angels, and he went willingly to the cross. He allowed men to crucify him.
I give you Scripture. You give me opinion.

I never argued that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ was fore-ordained. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, as the Scripture says.
But nowhere does it say that the rape of a woman and consequent abortion was ordained before the foundation of the world. The two don't go together. You have made an illogical leap of faith.

Who is the one making the Bible say whatever he wants??

No one said anything about force.

And do not bother posting anything to me anymore on this thread since you cannot but be antagonizing.

 

[DHK]

DHK---I agree that the Lord Jesus went willingly to the cross and that He allowed men to crucify Him

BUT

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus "laid aside some of His attributes like His divine omnipotence"????---------when the Bible is clear that Jesus "Knew the hearts of all men"??

And Jesus certainly COULD have called those "72 Grand"---why---at the very whisper of the word those angels could and would have obeyed the very call of the Omnipotent One

The simple fact is---Jesus didn't "lay aside" anything---merely He refused to use that divine power---He was God--He could do anything He wished but chose not to use that omnipotence-----He wasn't "powerless" to rescue Himself-----merely---He refused to use that power to rescue Himself!! He had other people in mind for rescue and redemption!!!

I trust it is only a matter of semantics brother. I used the term "laid aside" in the same way you used "merely refused to use," or "chose not to use." I didn't mean anything different than that.

 

[DHK]

No one said anything about force.

And do not bother posting anything to me anymore on this thread since you cannot but be antagonizing.

You quoted the verse:
He brought the Assyrians.
I ask, How?
Was it by force?
Or did he create circumstances such that He allowed the Assyrians to come on their own power to overtake Israel?
It was that simple.

 

[DHK]

The text neither says nor indicates ANYTHING about allowing.

But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:11-12)
The text says nothing about God being the author of sin.
God gives permission to Satan to afflict Job.
Before that Satan challenges the Lord: Take your hand of protection off of Job and he will curse you to your face. And so the Lord does, and allows Satan to afflict Job.

 

[quantumfaith]

The text neither says nor indicates ANYTHING about allowing.

"The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Allow, permission, granted authority, isnt that splitting a semantic hair Luke?

 

[quantumfaith]

You quoted the verse:
He brought the Assyrians.
I ask, How?
Was it by force?
Or did he create circumstances such that He allowed the Assyrians to come on their own power to overtake Israel?
It was that simple.

So very true, the Omnipotent God uses the known hearts and desires of men and kingdoms to accomplish His will and desire. Making Him and even more AWESOME God.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, it will inevitably lead to his stumbling.

You make it sound as if God starts a ball rolling and the effect of that ball rolling might lead to a person molesting a child...but is not God just as in control of the beginning as He is the middle and the end in you system? So, whats the point in using these types of analogies which suggest that God does something (ie sun setting or turning off the light) and that eventually will lead to something sinful. But that something sinful still had to originate with God in your system so why are you only talking about the first cause as if He is not equally in control of originating the second, third, fourth or millionth cause?

Sounds like Calvinism. This is compatabalism.

Actually it is historical Arminianism. If you don't believe me read Adam Clarke commentaries.

But what you must realize is that he INTENDS for these things to come to pass. He has a cause for them. He uses men doing what they want to do to fulfill his will.

We agree on this point.

Lam 3:37-38 Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

Do you believe this supports the view that God has determined sin? We all believe that God permits good and calamity. We all affirm that sin would not even exist had God not made the law. We all affirm God can annihilate evil but allows it to continue for His purposes. Calvinists don't own the rights to these truths and this verse only speaks to our common ground and doesn't go near far enough to support your presuppositions in this discussion.

 

[convicted1]

Sorry Brother, that I haven't gotten things across more precise than I did. I will try to do better on this one, but what comes from the "tips o' muh fangers" is sometimes different that what is in my mind!! :laugh:

Actually, I appreciate the time you took to lay this groundwork, but as I stated before, does moving the origin of evil back to Satan really address the issue?

Thank you for taking the time to read my "jumbled mess"!!

Placing the blame on Satan doesn't remove the problem regarding the origin of the sinful thought, because if it originates in Satan then you have the same problem as if it originates in man, which is that God must not be in complete control because something was created or originated apart from Him. So, you haven't avoided the issue posed by the question in the OP.

So, did Satan originate the thought "I will ascend into heaven," or did God originate that thought? If Satan, then how do Calvinists defend their position of God being in control over all things when something originated apart from Him? If God, then how do Calvinists defend their position that God is not the author of sin?

I will try to address these two paragraphs in one lump!! The "groundwork" I was trying to lay(and also show), was that sin originated solely in/by Lucifer. I believe that he acted of his own accord, without any influence from God whatsoever. What is in heaven that would make someone start sinning to begin with??? I believe that Lucifer was either jealous of Jesus being God's only Begotten, or that he wanted to be higher than God Himself. Either way, pride was the sin that I think brought about Lucifer's fall.

Here are some scriptures to support "pride":

Prov. 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Prov. 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Now, from that time until he beguiled Eve in the Garden would be purely conjecture, IMHO. Man is responsible for giving in to the thoughts(or temptations) that the devil brings to their(our) minds. He is what brings about the bad thoughts, but we are responsible for the choices we make, whether they be right or not. Does this address these questions better, Brother? If you need more clarification, just let me know!! :thumbs:

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[quantumfaith]

"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? (KJV)

The word "commandeth" in vs. 37 specifically refers to the word "punishment" in vs. 39. Thus what God is commanding is His "punishment" not the thoughts and intents of mans souls. The entire chapter that surrounds (context) 37-38 is about God's authority to bring judgement on an unrepentant people.

 

[Luke2427]

So very true, the Omnipotent God uses the known hearts and desires of men and kingdoms to accomplish His will and desire. Making Him and even more AWESOME God.

We agree with this.

But what you yield in agreeing with this Calvinistic position is that God wills for evil to come to pass.

 

[Luke2427]

"The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

Allow, permission, granted authority, isnt that splitting a semantic hair Luke?

No, it is not. Permission is most certainly there. But it is only part of a whole.

God gave Satan permission to afflict Job.

But God is the one who is the ultimate cause of Job's affliction.

Scripture is clear here: Job said, "The LORD hath taken away" and Scripture testifies "Job did not charge God foolishly".

None can do ANYTHING without God's permission. You and I cannot BREATHE without his permission. But permission does not fully encapsulate the truth taught in this text and many, many others.

 

[Luke2427]

You make it sound as if God starts a ball rolling and the effect of that ball rolling might lead to a person molesting a child...but is not God just as in control of the beginning as He is the middle and the end in you system?

The ball rolling analogy and what I am saying are not similar.

God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

That is what I am saying. He is the permitter and disposer of events so that sin will most certainly follow.

Not for sin itself but for the greater good that he will be able to bring about by this sin and it's ultimate eradication.

So, whats the point in using these types of analogies which suggest that God does something (ie sun setting or turning off the light) and that eventually will lead to something sinful. But that something sinful still had to originate with God in your system so why are you only talking about the first cause as if He is not equally in control of originating the second, third, fourth or millionth cause?

I think I answer this above. If not to your satisfaction, let me know and I will further elaborate.

Actually it is historical Arminianism. If you don't believe me read Adam Clarke commentaries.

I have them. I used them vociferously when I myself was an Arminian.

It IS compatabalism, nonetheless.

Would you consider yourself to be a classical Arminian?

We agree on this point.

Excellent

Do you believe this supports the view that God has determined sin? We all believe that God permits good and calamity. We all affirm that sin would not even exist had God not made the law. We all affirm God can annihilate evil but allows it to continue for His purposes. Calvinists don't own the rights to these truths and this verse only speaks to our common ground and doesn't go near far enough to support your presuppositions in this discussion.

God allowing or permitting is not in the text except that if ANYTHING is to happen God must allow it and permit it. No. What is in the text is God decreeing it, ordaining it.

 

[Luke2427]

doublepost

 

[Luke2427]

"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? (KJV)

The word "commandeth" in vs. 37 specifically refers to the word "punishment" in vs. 39. Thus what God is commanding is His "punishment" not the thoughts and intents of mans souls. The entire chapter that surrounds (context) 37-38 is about God's authority to bring judgement on an unrepentant people.

Yes, but the punishment that God decreed by way of prophecy that should come upon them is the evil deeds by way of the evil hearts of Jerusalem's enemies.

Those enemies would mean it for evil but God would mean it for good.

This is the SAME with every evil deed including the fall that God decreed.

God would mean it and use it and cause it for the ultimate eternal good whereas the evil doers would have evil in and of itself as their motive.

 

[The Archangel]

That is Job's take on it. That is not what the Scriptures say about God.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:12)
--These are the Lord's actual words, not simply Job's opinion. They are words of God giving Satan permission to afflict Job. Thus you are misinterpreting the Scripture.

So? I have not blasphemed God either, and have been in some difficult situations. This argument is a red herring. It is God that gave permission to Satan to afflict Job, and Job rightly did not blame God.

Satan is. Nothing occurs without God's permission. God allowed Satan to afflict Job. Job cannot understand all that goes on in heaven. His perception may be off a bit.

I have to say that your lack of respect for the scripture and your sloppy handling of it here is staggering.

You are missing, perhaps purposefully, the inspired words of the "narrator." Certainly God gives Satan permission, certainly God removes His hand of protection from Job, and certainly Satan afflicts Job.

But, again Job's words in both these cases are instructive: The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord and Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?

Now, you are correct, these are Job's words. But this is not merely "Job's perception" which may or may not be flawed. Job's perception is accurate--it is God (ultimately) who is responsible for these afflictions. The inspired narrator says (in both cases after Job states his perception): In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong and In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job clearly says that God is responsible. The narrator clearly states that Job is right. The narrator, further, goes on to say that Job did not sin or charge God with wrong by saying that God is the cause of this.

Your handling of this text is hopelessly flawed because you are not taking the text--all the text--into consideration.

God does not create evil, and did not create evil for Job. He allowed Satan to do evil to Job. It is terrible how you attribute evil to a just and holy God who will not countenance sin.

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? (Habakkuk 1:13)

I never said God created evil. I never said He created evil for job. I never attribute evil to God.

Now be careful here Mr. Moderator. You are engaging in "smear" tactics that are absolutely unbecoming of a moderator--but then again you usually only moderate the Calvinists and let the non-Calvinists run wild.

All I have said is that Job attributes the various calamities he has experienced to God and the inspired narrator has confirmed Job's words. Therefore, God is ultimately responsible for what has befallen Job.

No, I am not kidding. Nothing good comes from a terrorist. Or were in you in favor of the Muslim attack on the WTC. This was good in your sight. This was God's will, as they say it was Allah's will. Fatalism!

There are the words that Joseph used. They are accurately inspired or recorded by God.
There are the words that his brothers used--accurately inspired or recorded by God.
Then there is the will of God.
What was the will of God. It was not quite the way that Joseph expressed it. God used the circumstances created by his brothers that led to the imprisonment of Joseph and finally the exaltation of Joseph for His glory. That is more accurately put.
The brothers will still give account for their sin. They will stand before God and they will be judged. It was not God's will that they should inflict terror on their brother. All the evil brought upon Joseph was not God's will. Evil is never God's will. Having said that, God can use that evil, and turn it so that it will bring praise and honor to His name. But it still will be evil, and someone will still give account for it.

The wrath of man will praise Him.
All things work together for them that love him, for them that are called according to his purpose.

This is laughable--in one sentence you state "Nothing good comes from a terrorist" and then, later, you quote scripture saying "All things work together for them that love him, for them that are called according to his purpose" (especially because as you've already stated in other places, wrongly I might add, "all means all").

This is a clear contradiction and you simply cannot have this both ways. If "all" things work together for good (as you seem to affirm), then it must be the case that evil is one of the "all things" that works together for good--including the attacks on NYC.

You are clearly denying the principle that we find in Genesis 50--that even the free and sinful actions of human beings ultimately serve God's greater purposes.

Also, again, it is very infantile for you, as a moderator, to even suggest that I was even remotely in favor of the terrorist attacks. I think you are beginning to level false charges against be because you are coming to the end of the well in this discussion and you are resorting to insults and false accusations and directing them at me, rather than dealing with the texts presented in a truly exegetical fashion. Again, something we'd expect from some other members here, but certainly not from a moderator.

Are you the boss of God? God has need of nothing. He is God. If he needed anything at all he would not be God. Mark your words, "Egypt is required by God's words to Abraham..." God can use whatever means he wants.
As it was, Joseph suffered in Egypt and then was elevated to a position of authority. Suffering is a key element in the Christian life today. It is God's will that the Christian suffer (Phil. 1:29). What has that to do with this discussion. People have suffered ever since Adam was created. That is a fact of life. It is part of the curse.

God allows evil, not decrees evil. If he decrees or ordains evil, then God is no better than Allah. He allowed the brothers to badly treat Joseph. And those actions ultimately ended up in glorifying God. But God was not condoning the actions of the brothers. He is not the author of sin.

To say that God authors and ordains sin is in err. He doesn't. It is a fatalistic doctrine and puts God as vindictive and cruel.

This is exactly the case. In Islam it is called "Kismet," or fatalism. It is one of their basic tenets. I know you don't like the comparison. But that is what it is once you have God ordaining evil. He does not ordain or decree evil. He allows it.

I believe my position, not yours, is orthodox. God permits or allows evil as he did in Job's case. God's words, not Job's are accurate. For you to say that God determines and ordains evil beforehand is pure unadulterated fatalism. I do not believe in Open Theism. Neither do I believe in Fatalism or a fatalistic God.

You have a hopelessly wrong idea of the difference between fatalism and the Calvinist position. The greatest thing that absolutely disproves that we, Calvinists, are fatalists is that we pray. A true fatalist would never pray--and Calvinists are known for prayer. We do, in fact, pray for people to be healed from sickness, for very hardened persons to come to Christ, for people (and individuals) in general to come to Christ. So, the charge that we are fatalists is patently false.

A further difference in fatalism and Calvinism, as I've explained elsewhere, is that fatalism is generally based on an impersonal force--"fate." We do not hold God to be impersonal. We believe that God ordains both the means and the end so that when we pray for the salvation of "Fred," God has ordained that we pray for Fred so that He can answer that prayer bringing Fred to Christ.

So, again, as a moderator, you need to be careful with your false accusations that you bring to the discussion over and over and over again--especially because it has been explained to you that it is a false accusation on our part. But, like a one-trick-pony, it seems it is all you can think of to say in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So much for the "civil discussion." Who would have thought that it'd be a moderator who is leveling false accusations and ad hominem arguments. Very unfortunate.

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

The Archangel, I thought this was supposed to be a civil thread? You cannot accuse someone of a smear tactic when you start off by saying "I have to say that your lack of respect for the scripture and your sloppy handling of it here is staggering". While DHK did seem to instigate with some of his phrases, you also poured gasoline on the fire with your last post. Infantile, one trick pony, false accusations are equally uncalled for.

 

[The Archangel]

The Archangel, I thought this was supposed to be a civil thread? You cannot accuse someone of a smear tactic when you start off by saying "I have to say that your lack of respect for the scripture and your sloppy handling of it here is staggering". While DHK did seem to instigate with some of his phrases, you also poured gasoline on the fire with your last post. Infantile, one trick pony, false accusations are equally uncalled for.

Really?!

You state "DHK did seem to instigate." Now, the last time I checked, instigate meant to "initiate."

So, why are you accusing me of breaking the civility when you claim that DHK instigated? Should not your accusation be leveled at him?

Further you assume that the statement about the sloppy handling of scripture is a false accusation. As I pointed out, the "narrator's" words were clearly missed or discounted. Therefore, it is an observation, not a false accusation.

It would seem that you are the leader of the "Anti-Archangel" club in that you only seem to see presupposed errors, lack of civility, etc. on my part whilst not addressing the very person or persons you admit are the "instigators."

Your observation is as inaccurate as it is unfair. That you would break into an otherwise civil discussion to accuse me of something that you clearly state I did not instigate is interesting. It shows upon which side your bread is buttered.

The Archangel