-
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!
An anti-Calvinist conundrum
- Thread starter whetstone
- Start date
Palmetto Boy
New Member
The Fall didn't take God by surprise. Since he knew it was coming, He could have prevented it by not creating the world in the first place. So, the question is not simply one of man's will. It is that God must have a bigger plan than we understand for the universe.
Going back to the Machen quote. I think you falsely simplify calvinists' view of man's will. The Adamic account indicates that man has a will. I think many calvinists would shy away from saying man has a "free" will because that implies it is untouchable by God, something I think we would all agree is biblically unsupportable (look at Pharaoh, for one example). Yet that does not mean that God is the author of sin.
Also look at Romans 1. God judges us by "giving us up" to our sinful lusts. Is God causing us to sin? I don't think so. God is simply removing His hand and allowing us to go our own way. We are like a spring being compressed, but as God slowly lets go, our sinful nature springs back to its natural shape.
Going back to the Machen quote. I think you falsely simplify calvinists' view of man's will. The Adamic account indicates that man has a will. I think many calvinists would shy away from saying man has a "free" will because that implies it is untouchable by God, something I think we would all agree is biblically unsupportable (look at Pharaoh, for one example). Yet that does not mean that God is the author of sin.
Also look at Romans 1. God judges us by "giving us up" to our sinful lusts. Is God causing us to sin? I don't think so. God is simply removing His hand and allowing us to go our own way. We are like a spring being compressed, but as God slowly lets go, our sinful nature springs back to its natural shape.
Yes, you are correct. The anti-Calvinist objection to the Calvinist denying "free-will" is an emotional reaction based on their failure to understand what "free-will" is. When a Calvinist says man does not have a "free will" he simply means that the will of man is in bondage to sin and death. A lost man is free to do whatever he want to do as long as it is in his nature to do so.
For instance, I may want to fly like a bird, but I am not "free" to do so because it is not in the nature of man to fly like a bird. I simply can't do that which is contrary to my nature.
The same is true of fallen man. He is not free to come to Christ on his own merit because his fallen nature is at enmity with God. He is only "free" to do that which his moral nature allows, and that is only to sin.
Without the intervention of God he will never come to Christ for his nature is contrary to Christ.
Wes Outwest
New Member
Satan did not wait until Isaiah to "I will", It was "in the beginning", about the same era that "In the beginning God created" was taking place. As for your question statement, when do you suppose that the concept of sin was actually born?
I don't know Wes. Thats why I'm asking. I'm curious what peoples opinions are as it still confuses me. Its like, if God had an awareness of what sin was, before satan sinned, then it begs the question of where did sin originate. But if sin was started by satan without God knowing beforehand, then it contradicts the concept of an all knowing God. I know what I mean but I'm finding it hard to word it.
Do you understand ?
Do you understand ?
Wes Outwest
New Member
Yea, I get wrapped up sometimes too.
Was Satan a created being?
Since God created the heavens along with the earth before he created man, and Lucifer was a "Heavenly being" it seems that before God created man, sin existed. Whether or not it was acted out before man was created may be a matter of debate, however, it is a reasonably safe assumption that Lucifer's fall occured before man's, else there would have been no beguiling serpent (liar) in the garden.
God cast satan out of heaven, and down to the earth. Then man was created of the earth. Was Satan the first to sin? Who knows, but satan seems to be the first to get caught at it. Even so, Satan was not a man! So there is no way to equate satan with man regarding sin, or redemption or salvation. All we can do is measure man against God's word for and about man.
Was Satan a created being?
Since God created the heavens along with the earth before he created man, and Lucifer was a "Heavenly being" it seems that before God created man, sin existed. Whether or not it was acted out before man was created may be a matter of debate, however, it is a reasonably safe assumption that Lucifer's fall occured before man's, else there would have been no beguiling serpent (liar) in the garden.
God cast satan out of heaven, and down to the earth. Then man was created of the earth. Was Satan the first to sin? Who knows, but satan seems to be the first to get caught at it. Even so, Satan was not a man! So there is no way to equate satan with man regarding sin, or redemption or salvation. All we can do is measure man against God's word for and about man.
Hi Diane,
Acts 2:23 says that God's "determinate counsel" brought about the death of Christ. So it is no conundrum to say that God brings something to pass, and also to say that it is sin to those who take part in it.
Also, Gen. 50:20 was mentioned. Your response indicated that God knew what the brothers' plan was and turned it around on them. The Bible uses stronger language than that, though. Joseph says that God "intended" those sins against Joseph for good. Was Joseph wrong?
Another example - Job says that it was God who gave all that he had, and that it was God who took it all away. Now we know that Satan stirred up theives and weather to take Job's possesions and family. Yet the Bible affirms that Job was correct in what he said about God taking his stuff. How can both be true?
Hi Rich. This is a fair question, but one that we should not concern ourselves about. The origin of sin is not "explained" to us in Scripture, as God, Whose thoughts are higher than our own, has decided in His wisdom that we need not know, has not told us. We should not probe too deep into the origin of sin, as it will do us more harm than good. This is one "doctrine" that we humbly have to admit that we do not know the answer to. Lest the devil take our thinking and turn our toughts to placing things at God, when we do not know the first thing about it.
Think about it. If the Lord wanted us to know about the origin of sin, then there would be very clear Scripture to this. Let us not get caught up in guessing what did happen.
We know that we server a Holy God, Who hates sin, and wants us to do the same. Who punished the devil because he thought he could be like the Most High. Let not our thoughts lead to our downfall!
Hi Diane,
Acts 2:23 says that God's "determinate counsel" brought about the death of Christ. So it is no conundrum to say that God brings something to pass, and also to say that it is sin to those who take part in it.
Also, Gen. 50:20 was mentioned. Your response indicated that God knew what the brothers' plan was and turned it around on them. The Bible uses stronger language than that, though. Joseph says that God "intended" those sins against Joseph for good. Was Joseph wrong?
Another example - Job says that it was God who gave all that he had, and that it was God who took it all away. Now we know that Satan stirred up theives and weather to take Job's possesions and family. Yet the Bible affirms that Job was correct in what he said about God taking his stuff. How can both be true? </font>[/QUOTE]I think that you have missed the point here. God "uses" circumstances and people to carry out His will, and His plans. But this is not the same as saying that He makes (or causes, or preordains) us sin. God took the injustice that was done to Joseph, and turned it around for good. Likewise, God used Judas to carry out his own wishes. Please note that the Bible clearly says that the devil entered the heart of Judas, that he should do this terrable thing against Jesus. But, as bad as it was, yes it was part of the plan of God for our Redemption.
We simply cannot suggest that God is the cause of anytinh that is evil and sinful. For He is a Holy and Righteous God.
Diane,
I want to respond to your comments on foreknowledge. I would have agreed with you completely until a few years ago. I think most evangelicals today would agree with your position. As I understand it, you see God’s foreknowledge as a simple (or not so simple) omniscient understanding of all events. He sees the future, of course, so He “elects” to be saved only those whom receive Christ. I have a logical problem with this and I have a biblical problem with it. First the logical dilemma:
The Bible is overwhelmingly full of passages that teach election. Just to list a few, please look at Is. 42:1; 1 Pet. 2:6; 1 Tim. 5:21; Deut. 7:6; Is. 45:5; Luke 6:13; Acts 9:15; 1 Peter 5:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; Titus 1:1; John 13:18; Eph. 1:4; and dozens more. When we say that God’s election is based on seeing events that happened and then making a decision, we are really turning the concept completely backward. In other words, the one electing is not God, but fallen man. If God waits until He sees who will make a decision to believe in Christ then we are the ones determining our fate, not God. Does that make sense? It’s the classic cart before the horse. Why would God say He chooses some for salvation “before the foundation of the world” if He actually let us make that choice? Logically, it is exactly the opposite of the plainest reading of the term “election.” We elect a president and other officials and the one elected is the object receiving the action. God=subject, elects=verb, for salvation (people who are saved)=objects.
But, I have a biblical problem with it too, and this is the only argument that really matters because it’s God’s word.
The word Foreknow is rather simple in Greek: prognosis. The word means “to know before.” So far, it seems your interpretation is absolutely correct. God “knows before” who would be saved and that is that. However, when you look at the word in context and let the context determine meaning, you’ll find some real depth in the simple word “prognosis.”
The word has two forms, noun and verbal. The verbal form “proginosko” is found in Romans 8:29, 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:20. The noun form is found in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2. The Hebrew usage is the word “yada” and means “to know.”
Here is the question: Does yada and prognosis mean an intellectual knowledge of events or does it, in context, refer to something more personal? Let’s see how it is used.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew (yada) you, before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5. God is saying He “knew” Jeremiah before He was born. Is this verse saying He didn’t know about any other babies that were to be born in the world? Of course not; God knows everything. The context indicates God knew Jeremiah in the sense of a predetermined relationship with the prophet. God is active in His knowledge of Jeremiah. It isn’t a simple knowing of facts. It is more than that.
“I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight, and I have known (yada) you by name.” Exodus 33:17. Here again we see God “knowing” Moses in a personal way. It isn’t just intellectual or factual awareness, it is more.
“You only have I known (yada) among all the nations of the earth.” Amos 3:2. Did God mean He didn’t know anything about any other nation? Of course not. The knowledge is indicative of a predetermined relationship with His chosen people.
To the New Testament…
“God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew (proginosko)” Romans 11:2a. This is a direct relation to the Amos passage. We see God knowing, in a predetermined and intimate way, His chosen people. The Greek meaning should be interpreted in the same context as the Hebrew.
“He indeed was foreordained (proginosko) before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” 1 Peter 1:20. In this passage, Christ is the One known about beforehand. The translators used “foreordained” in the New King James because the sense of proginosko was clearly to be understood in that way.
I’m sure you would all agree that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world was not an accident. God didn’t look through time, see His Son live and die in obedience, and then decide to foreordain Him. No, Christ DID die on the cross BECAUSE the Father predetermined that He would do exactly that. And, this decision was made from eternity past.
In the same chapter, Peter uses the noun form of “to know” to refer to the elect who are saved when he says “…elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God…” This is the clincher for me. Whatever prognosis means in verse 2 it must also mean in verse 20. If Christ was no accident but rather a perfect fulfillment of God’s foreordaining purposes, then so also are those who are elect. You are elect because God chose you to be. You accepted Christ because that is exactly what God ordained for you. “You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.”
Finally, please know that the most famous usage of this word is in Romans 8:29: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined…” In this case, the object of foreknowing is a person (whom) not an event (salvation). In other words, God doesn’t “see in advance who will be saved” but rather elects individuals for salvation, as this passage says.
I want to respond to your comments on foreknowledge. I would have agreed with you completely until a few years ago. I think most evangelicals today would agree with your position. As I understand it, you see God’s foreknowledge as a simple (or not so simple) omniscient understanding of all events. He sees the future, of course, so He “elects” to be saved only those whom receive Christ. I have a logical problem with this and I have a biblical problem with it. First the logical dilemma:
The Bible is overwhelmingly full of passages that teach election. Just to list a few, please look at Is. 42:1; 1 Pet. 2:6; 1 Tim. 5:21; Deut. 7:6; Is. 45:5; Luke 6:13; Acts 9:15; 1 Peter 5:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; Titus 1:1; John 13:18; Eph. 1:4; and dozens more. When we say that God’s election is based on seeing events that happened and then making a decision, we are really turning the concept completely backward. In other words, the one electing is not God, but fallen man. If God waits until He sees who will make a decision to believe in Christ then we are the ones determining our fate, not God. Does that make sense? It’s the classic cart before the horse. Why would God say He chooses some for salvation “before the foundation of the world” if He actually let us make that choice? Logically, it is exactly the opposite of the plainest reading of the term “election.” We elect a president and other officials and the one elected is the object receiving the action. God=subject, elects=verb, for salvation (people who are saved)=objects.
But, I have a biblical problem with it too, and this is the only argument that really matters because it’s God’s word.
The word Foreknow is rather simple in Greek: prognosis. The word means “to know before.” So far, it seems your interpretation is absolutely correct. God “knows before” who would be saved and that is that. However, when you look at the word in context and let the context determine meaning, you’ll find some real depth in the simple word “prognosis.”
The word has two forms, noun and verbal. The verbal form “proginosko” is found in Romans 8:29, 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:20. The noun form is found in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2. The Hebrew usage is the word “yada” and means “to know.”
Here is the question: Does yada and prognosis mean an intellectual knowledge of events or does it, in context, refer to something more personal? Let’s see how it is used.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew (yada) you, before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5. God is saying He “knew” Jeremiah before He was born. Is this verse saying He didn’t know about any other babies that were to be born in the world? Of course not; God knows everything. The context indicates God knew Jeremiah in the sense of a predetermined relationship with the prophet. God is active in His knowledge of Jeremiah. It isn’t a simple knowing of facts. It is more than that.
“I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight, and I have known (yada) you by name.” Exodus 33:17. Here again we see God “knowing” Moses in a personal way. It isn’t just intellectual or factual awareness, it is more.
“You only have I known (yada) among all the nations of the earth.” Amos 3:2. Did God mean He didn’t know anything about any other nation? Of course not. The knowledge is indicative of a predetermined relationship with His chosen people.
To the New Testament…
“God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew (proginosko)” Romans 11:2a. This is a direct relation to the Amos passage. We see God knowing, in a predetermined and intimate way, His chosen people. The Greek meaning should be interpreted in the same context as the Hebrew.
“He indeed was foreordained (proginosko) before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” 1 Peter 1:20. In this passage, Christ is the One known about beforehand. The translators used “foreordained” in the New King James because the sense of proginosko was clearly to be understood in that way.
I’m sure you would all agree that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world was not an accident. God didn’t look through time, see His Son live and die in obedience, and then decide to foreordain Him. No, Christ DID die on the cross BECAUSE the Father predetermined that He would do exactly that. And, this decision was made from eternity past.
In the same chapter, Peter uses the noun form of “to know” to refer to the elect who are saved when he says “…elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God…” This is the clincher for me. Whatever prognosis means in verse 2 it must also mean in verse 20. If Christ was no accident but rather a perfect fulfillment of God’s foreordaining purposes, then so also are those who are elect. You are elect because God chose you to be. You accepted Christ because that is exactly what God ordained for you. “You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.”
Finally, please know that the most famous usage of this word is in Romans 8:29: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined…” In this case, the object of foreknowing is a person (whom) not an event (salvation). In other words, God doesn’t “see in advance who will be saved” but rather elects individuals for salvation, as this passage says.
I
ILUVLIGHT
Guest
Hi Whatever;
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike
Because Christ followed what he predestined what does this have to do with me being predestined by and forced to follow it?.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike
bjonson....
Finally someone else who actually exegetes the greek not forceing the greek ... good job. It's easy when you let the scripture determine what it means and not you "determining" what it means.
Poor ILL....
He doesn't force you to desire good, He only gives you the ability to desire the good.
Ezek 36.26 and no this isn't "just for the Jews".
Finally someone else who actually exegetes the greek not forceing the greek ... good job. It's easy when you let the scripture determine what it means and not you "determining" what it means.
Poor ILL....
He doesn't force you to desire good, He only gives you the ability to desire the good.
Ezek 36.26 and no this isn't "just for the Jews".
MargoWriter
New Member
Ah, the soveringty of God.
No man, evil or otherwise, can do anything God doesn't want him to do, if God chooses to stop him.
Throughout history many men have done things that are contrary to God's 'will' . . . but that doesn't mean God didn't allow them to happen.
As far as an evil man bent on rejecting Christ--take C. S. Lewis. He was just such a man. But GOd had other plans for him, and so Lewis could not succeed in his rejection.
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." --C.S. Lewis
D
dianetavegia
Guest
No. Not if God chooses to stop the action. Yes if God chooses to allow us to live with those consequences.
Yes. God gives each man free will to accept or reject the free gift of salvation.
God allowed David to kill Uriah and impregnate Bathsheba but then killed David's newborn son as punishment.
A Calvinist might say God made David kill Uriah, the God made David sin with Bathsheba and then God killed an innocent baby because of God's preordained actions/ sins.
God gave Solomon great wisdom and Solomon made a bunch of stupid decisions. After all, he had 1,000 mother in laws.
MargoWriter
New Member
Just because we have the free will to kill doesn't mean we have the free will to find God and trust in him ourselves . . .