...but what of His Holiness?

[jonathan.borland]

So when God commands all men everywhere to repent he therefore grants prevenient grace equally to all and those he foreknew would receive him by his grace through faith he elected them and predestined them to become his sons and daughters, right?

 

[Skandelon]

I almost agree with you...

Two differences...

First, God had to allow that to happen or it would not have happened

Agreed.

, but that does not take away the fact that choice WAS available in FREE Adam and FREE Satan.

Agreed (Depending on what you mean by 'free.' "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action"...i.e., contra-causal freedom.)

Second, we no longer have the same freedom as did Adam. He is the cause of our separation from God and ever after Adam we are separated from God -- sin -- that only Christ can remove. Our "sins" stem from our separation but we are already separated before we commit the first act of sin that we recognize as such.

Agreed.

I think in principle we agree on these matters, but the point of departure (which Aaron continually avoids discussing because he thinks its a 'peripheral issue') is regarding the effectuality (irresistibility) of the means God uses to "remove" sin and bring reconciliation. We can both agree the revealed means in scripture are: Son, Spirit, Apostles, Church, and the Gospel. You just presume these means are ineffective without a prior inward irresistible working of the Holy Spirit which in essence has to reconcile a person (regenerate) so as to give them the ability to be reconciled. They, in a sense, must be saved (regenerated) in order to produce the means through which salvation is applied. I don't believe this concept is supported in the text. Plus, if its true it gives all unbelievers everywhere the perfect excuse for their unbelief, for what better excuse is there than, "I was born this way and can't change." or "God didn't grant me faith." or "God does really love me." or "God didn't want me."

These are DEVASTATING teachings to many who come to our churches seeking love and acceptance, not only from us, but especially from God.

 

[Skandelon]

So when God commands all men everywhere to repent he therefore grants prevenient grace equally to all and those he foreknew would receive him by his grace through faith he elected them and predestined them to become his sons and daughters, right?

Some might believe that, but I do not. That is not the scholarly approach of most respected non-Cal theologians, but unfortunately is what most Christians today think is the only alternative to the Calvinistic answers. It's really no wonder so many are becoming Calvinistic.

The problem with this is view is that it makes the same basic false presumption that the Calvinists make. They over individualize the concepts of divine election and predestination (a problem in Western worldview where everything is about US individually).

I don't have much time but think of it this way. A pilot can predetermine the destination of his airplane without predetermining the individuals who board, right? In the same manner, Paul teaches that God has predetermined to conform and adopt whosoever believes, even if they are not a Jew. That is Paul's intent in Eph 1 and Rom 8. God has predestined "US" (all who believe) to be conformed to the image of Christ and adopted as his sons. We eagerly await our adoption (Rm 8), and that is God's predetermined 'destination' for WHOSOEVER BELIEVES in Him, even if they aren't of the SEED of Abraham (which is the big debate of Paul's day).

Got to run. Feel free to follow up with questions if you have them. Thanks.

 

[Aaron]

Which takes us right back around on this merry-go-round to what/who corrupted Adam. "Satan made me do it!"

Bad fruit, Aaron.

Bad tree???


Satan made him do it?

Again, I like to start with the words of Christ.

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil:

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.
​

When one views Adam from the universal, non-optional principles laid down by Christ, then the issue is clear to see.

But Adam's corruption isn't the only issue that trips you up. Back to my original point...The fact and manner of Christ's death and the instruments thereof were eternally predetermined, not by any necessity, but by God's will. This is how the Father glorifies His Son, and how the Father is glorified in His Son. It is the reason that the world was created, and all things are moving according to God's eternal plan.

 

[Aaron]

Now that you have established that you really believe that Satan made Adam sin...

That is your scoffing interpretation, because you don't like the implications of Christ's words. You are the one avoiding the issue.

...maybe you could explain what made Satan sin? Was he created corrupt?

Not corrupt, but corruptible. Who knows what corrupted Satan? We're not told and it's useless to speculate. The origin of Satan's fall, is irrelevant.

I think your deterministic worldview falls apart here. God doesn't create people or angels with corruption. He creates them with freedom.

That's not what is stated. It is stated that the all things were created good, but not incorruptible.

And since you can't define, understand and systematize freedom you just can't accept the mystery of its obvious reality.

Don't assume that because I don't cast before you every pearl that I possess that I possess none.

Is God a free agent? Can He lie? Can He deny Himself? He who the Son sets free, can he fall away? Can he depart if he chooses? No? Why? Is he not free indeed?

Very simply put, freedom is slavery to Christ.

It really is very simple. Adam determined his choice and he is responsible for it, period. Satan determined his choice and he is responsible for it, period. What CAUSED or determined Adam to sin? Adam did. What CAUSED or determined Satan to sin? Satan did. What determines your sins? You do. When you fail to resist temptation its not Christ's failure, its yours. When you do resist temptation then give glory to God because he gave you all you needed to make that choice and He didn't have to do that. Just because you had the ability to reject his gracious provision doesn't mean He didn't provide it and that he shouldn't receive the glory for it.

You can only play there if you deny the universal, non-optional principles clearly, and implicitly delivered by Christ.

 

[Aaron]

When you fail to resist temptation its not Christ's failure, its yours.

That's right, it's sin in me, as Paul said.

When you do resist temptation then give glory to God because he gave you all you needed to make that choice and He didn't have to do that.

Still, sin is present with me. As I said, you don't understand one's union with Christ. All my righteousness is already accomplished, and was accomplished by Christ. Anything I do, that one might judge as "good" here on earth is corrupt. I bring nothing to my union with Christ but sin. That is all I bring. You don't understand that.

You do not understand the depth and breadth of your own sin, therefore you do not understand the depth and breadth of the work of Christ. Your arguments betray a shallow, and self-aggrandizing view. You don't praise God. You praise yourself. You built the building, God just gave you the tools.

Just because you had the ability to reject his gracious provision doesn't mean He didn't provide it and that he shouldn't receive the glory for it.

Calling one's corruption an ability is like saying one born blind has the ability to not see. Sin is not an ability, it is a disability. Freedom is slavery to Christ. Only Sodom would call it otherwise.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Aaron, so what/who corrupted Adam who was created, in your words, corruptible but not corrupt?

Skandelon, who are the most scholarly non Cals in your opinion? I'm guessing Norm Geisler didn't make it?

 

[Skandelon]

Again, I like to start with the words of Christ.

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil:

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.
​

When one views Adam from the universal, non-optional principles laid down by Christ, then the issue is clear to see.

So, are you telling me that Jesus' teaching regarding how we are to beware of and recognize false teachers should be applied to how we are to understand Adam's choice to sin?

Read the context:

15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Jesus is teaching us how we can know good teachers from bad ones. You will know them by their fruit. You are plucking a verse from its context to try and prop up your system. This is just about the worse case of proof texting I've ever seen.

Adam sinned because Adam chose to sin, period. He didn't do it because Satan or God or anyone else corrupted him first. He made a free choice and that choice was sinful. His choice wasn't determined by anyone other than himself.

 

[Skandelon]

Not corrupt, but corruptible. Who knows what corrupted Satan? We're not told and it's useless to speculate. The origin of Satan's fall, is irrelevant.

Of course you would say that because to say what we KNOW would undermine your insistence that free will doesn't exist. Sin was found IN SATAN. He sinned, by HIS own choice. Satan corrupted Satan. Just admit that and appeal to mystery so you can stop with all this non-sense.

And I'm fine with the statement that "all things were created good, but not incorruptible," but that avoids the question as to who does the corrupting. Where does the intent to sin originate? I say in the creature. But if you admit that then you have to deal with issues within your system as to how God is 'informed' by something that originates outside of God. I don't need to deal with that because I am willing to appeal to mystery and just allow the scripture to stand which says, "sin was found in him," and leave it at that. He has the freedom to sin or not sin and he is accountable for his choice, period.

Don't assume that because I don't cast before you every pearl that I possess that I possess none.

Oink oink

 

[Skandelon]

Still, sin is present with me. As I said, you don't understand one's union with Christ. All my righteousness is already accomplished, and was accomplished by Christ. Anything I do, that one might judge as "good" here on earth is corrupt. I bring nothing to my union with Christ but sin. That is all I bring. You don't understand that.

Apparently that is because I'm a swine that just can't quite grasp your precious pearls. If only God loved me as much as he loves you and granted me the intelligence He has granted to you. I can only hope He makes me able to be as humble and smart as you are.

You do not understand the depth and breadth of your own sin, therefore you do not understand the depth and breadth of the work of Christ. Your arguments betray a shallow, and self-aggrandizing view. You don't praise God. You praise yourself. You built the building, God just gave you the tools.

I love you bro. and I know enough about God and people to know that I can't change how you think about me or Him. For you to say something like this to another brother simply because I believe his gifts are able to be rejected and you believe they are effectually applied is beyond the pale.

What you refuse to deal with is that a gift doesn't have to be irresistibly applied for the giver to get ALL the credit for giving it and for those who reject the gift to get all the blame for their rebellion. For some reason (that you won't discuss because its 'peripheral') you have come to conclusion that for God to get all the credit for his gifts, He MUST effectually and irresistibly apply them to a select few. In reality, God should get the credit for his gifts and gracious provisions even when they are rejected, but especially when they bring life and healing.

People who reject God's gracious provisions do so despite God's love and desire to bring them reconciliation and their condemnation is deserved, but that doesn't lesson the glory of his grace or the depth of his mercy. For you to suggest otherwise is only an expression of ignorance for what I actually believe and have experienced in my walk with Christ. I bring nothing but my sin. Even my faith is filthy rags in his sight. But God in his mercy takes our filthy rags and credits it to our account as righteousness because of Christ's provision.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, who are the most scholarly non Cals in your opinion? I'm guessing Norm Geisler didn't make it?

It's been a while since I've read Norm's stuff, but from what I remember he makes some good points regarding 'self-determiniation.'

I enjoy Adam Clarke's commentaries. And even though I may not agree with every point that is made I believe there is much wisdom in reading scholars from both perspectives. Reading Calvin and Arminius' actual words is very helpful, in my experience. It really is amazing how similar they really are. Both focus greatly on the Glory and sovereignty of God.

I also like Hershel Hobbs, John Wesley and others who hold to similar views. Many take various approaches to the issues, but they all offer good insight.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Any more rather modern scholars to read on the issue? Do you consider Roger Olsen a scholarly one to read?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Of course you would say that because to say what we KNOW would undermine your insistence that free will doesn't exist. Sin was found IN SATAN. He sinned, by HIS own choice. Satan corrupted Satan. Just admit that and appeal to mystery so you can stop with all this non-sense.

And I'm fine with the statement that "all things were created good, but not incorruptible," but that avoids the question as to who does the corrupting. Where does the intent to sin originate? I say in the creature. But if you admit that then you have to deal with issues within your system as to how God is 'informed' by something that originates outside of God. I don't need to deal with that because I am willing to appeal to mystery and just allow the scripture to stand which says, "sin was found in him," and leave it at that. He has the freedom to sin or not sin and he is accountable for his choice, period.
Oink oink

Good points, Skandelon. This is the basic issue and then one has to posit weird things like God ordains/commands/decrees sin but does not author it.

 

[Skandelon]

Good points, Skandelon. This is the basic issue and then one has to posit weird things like God ordains/commands/decrees sin but does not author it.

Yes. And it seems to me that their concept of what God actually does in unchangeably "ordaining/decreeing" sin is worse in regard to culpability than "authoring" would be. I mean which is worse and why?

 

[Aaron]

So, are you telling me that Jesus' teaching regarding how we are to beware of and recognize false teachers should be applied to how we are to understand Adam's choice to sin?

Read the context:



Jesus is teaching us how we can know good teachers from bad ones. You will know them by their fruit. You are plucking a verse from its context to try and prop up your system. This is just about the worse case of proof texting I've ever seen.

And you of all people should know proof texting.


"By their fruits ye shall know them" is a universal principle. That is how the integrity of everyone and everything is known. So it applies to people as well as trees.

Adam sinned because Adam chose to sin, period. He didn't do it because Satan or God or anyone else corrupted him first. He made a free choice and that choice was sinful. His choice wasn't determined by anyone other than himself.

Restating one's notions is no evidence that they are the correct notions. That's why I like to begin with Christ's words.

 

[Aaron]

Of course you would say that because to say what we KNOW would undermine your insistence that free will doesn't exist.

I say it because it is true. What do you know of the fall of Satan? Nothing. Asserting it was a certain way when you have no evidence thereof is pure fairytale. Is that the fruit of a good teacher?

Sin was found IN SATAN.

An obvious allusion to an oft-repeated, yet arbitrary interpretation of Ezekiel 28. The King of Tyre is the subject, and by allegory, Adam, not Satan.

We know of the condition of man and the fall of Adam. We are given a multitude of incontrovertible judgments about those. And those are where I will begin when I assert anything. Attempting to allude to the fall of angels as if you've been told anything about them is vain imagination.

He sinned, by HIS own choice. Satan corrupted Satan.

Question beg much?

Just admit that and appeal to mystery so you can stop with all this non-sense.

The only nonsense I see around here is the constant assertions of one's notions as established fact with no evidence.

And I'm fine with the statement that "all things were created good, but not incorruptible," but that avoids the question as to who does the corrupting.

That's a question to be entertained once one submits to the premises delivered by Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

And you of all people should know proof texting.

True, I do spend a lot of time debating Calvinists, so I'm quite familiar with it.

"By their fruits ye shall know them" is a universal principle. That is how the integrity of everyone and everything is known. So it applies to people as well as trees.

Right. So, you should know better than to continually treat me (and others) with disrespect and distain. That is a bad fruit that you often produce here, so what are we to conclude about you?

And KNOWING someone by their fruit is quite different from suggesting they have no control over changing from being one kind of 'tree' to another by the assistance of God's grace.

 

[Skandelon]

I say it because it is true. What do you know of the fall of Satan? Nothing.

An obvious allusion to an oft-repeated, yet arbitrary interpretation of Ezekiel 28. The King of Tyre is the subject, and by allegory, Adam, not Satan.

That is debatable but inconsequential because the result is the same. Either way, the Lord said of him, "You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you."

And... "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.' I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

These passage show that the corruption was not created or made by God, but that it was 'found.' Where did this pride and desire to become like God originate? In the creator or the created? You can't...you won't answer that question and we all know why.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm trying to get iconoclast's contention that ordaining evil is different than authoring it. Also, that God does not permit or allow evil but rather ordains/foreordained it. I guess that means he willed and then decreed every evil deed that ever occurred or will occur to occur. He somehow gave men a free will but only to make himself not culpable to the sins that he decreed or ordered that they commit. Is that right?[/QUOTE]

1]There is no free will ...men make choices,but there will is not free it is bound by their nature.

2]

He somehow gave men a free will but only to make himself not culpable to the sins that he decreed or ordered that they commit

This is a wicked speculation on your part,and should have no place in a christians thought.
God does not have to make himself anything...he is perfect in all His ways.
God does not order men to sin...this also is a wicked slander of God.

3]

I'm trying to get iconoclast's contention that ordaining evil is different than authoring it

Nothing exists outside of God's knowledge or control......or God is not God. not one molecule exists or moves unless God has ordained it to be so.
There is no random.

 

[jonathan.borland]

This is a wicked speculation on your part,and should have no place in a christians thought.
God does not have to make himself anything...he is perfect in all His ways.
God does not order men to sin...this also is a wicked slander of God.

It was merely a speculation of what you believed. It appears I was wrong. Sorry. So how did sin get into Satan and Adam? If I understand your view correctly, God put it there, no? You say he ordained it but did not author it. If he ordained it but did not author it, where did it come from? Please enlighten me.