Calvinism and Free Will

[Rippon]

BTW , WD , Adam Clarke ( 1760-1832 ) was certainly not a Calvinist . He was Wesleyan -- a decided Arminian .

 

[s8147817430]

That would be Biblical Hebrew, in this case, since we're talking OT.

Yes, that too.

Isn't there a translation into Greek, too?

 

[webdog]

I hold to the scriptural view. It says what it says, and I make no effort to tone it down, cushion it, pretend it's a parable, wrap it in more palatable terms, or change it.

I'm happy to see you try to disprove it, though. It shows that you finally understand the ramifications. "If this stuff in Kings/Chronicles is true, then my position that you're saying God must be the author of sin is false".

.

...yet other calvinists don't agree. Hmmm....

I would venture they would see your view as God authoring sin being false, too. I wish the BB would designate that as "damnable heresies", along with ME.

 

[TCGreek]

...yet other calvinists don't agree. Hmmm....

I would venture they would see your view as God authoring sin being false, too. I wish the BB would designate that as "damnable heresies", along with ME.

Webdog,

What exactly should be quarantined as "damnable heresies"?

 

[npetreley]

...yet other calvinists don't agree. Hmmm....

I would venture they would see your view as God authoring sin being false, too. I wish the BB would designate that as "damnable heresies", along with ME.

Do you want to dance around apologizing now, or do you want to produce the post where I said God is the author of sin? Please ignore those where I said exactly the opposite - they won't do much for your case.

You have no scruples, dog. Shame.

 

[bound]

Grace and Peace,

True Arminian theology [that is faithful to Arminius himself] always shows a profound respect for the primacy of the faith-related grace of God and the doctrine of the sinfulness of man, while at the same time pleading for man's consistent responsibility in the saving relationship. ~ p.24 The Arminian Arm of Theology by Howard Slaatte

 

[webdog]

Do you want to dance around apologizing now, or do you want to produce the post where I said God is the author of sin? Please ignore those where I said exactly the opposite - they won't do much for your case.

You have no scruples, dog. Shame.

I believe Alex highlighted that already. I don't have the time to search every post.

Should I use the npet apology format of: "I'm not using this as an excuse, but..."?

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

What exactly should be quarantined as "damnable heresies"?

God wanting sin would be one. God causing mankind to sin would be another.

 

[webdog]

A brother in Christ supplied me with the following link that does a good job of explaining the text in question:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/godlies.html

 

[npetreley]

I believe Alex highlighted that already. I don't have the time to search every post.

Should I use the npet apology format of: "I'm not using this as an excuse, but..."?

You have the gall to accuse me of something, but you're too lazy to substantiate it. That's pathetic beyond even your normal behavior.

I'll tell you what you're really doing. You can't see how God can plan sin without being the author of it, so on that basis, you accuse me of saying God is the author of sin.

On the same basis, I could accuse you of saying God is an idiot, God is incompetent, and accuse you of believing in open theism. You can deny it all you want. It doesn't matter, because using YOUR reasoning all I have to do is interpret your theology that way, and that gives me license to accuse you of actually saying God is stupid, incompetent, etc.

You need a swift kick.

I'm putting you on ignore, webdog. Your pathetic pride and inability to admit when you're wrong is too much for me.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Exactly. I don't see what's so hard to understand. I think people are just paranoid that if they admit God actually MEANS for evil to occur, that will taint their image of God.

A very good reason to be worried. Such charges against God are an abomination, and so indeed poison one's understanding of the essence of God. Even among Calvinists, my belief is that you are an extreme view, one foreign to the majority of those that hold to the tenets of Calvinism.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I believe Alex highlighted that already. I don't have the time to search every post.

Should I use the npet apology format of: "I'm not using this as an excuse, but..."?

From Post #27

But I would have to assume that at least PART of God's desires were for sin to enter the world. It is all for His glory. And it works.

This is the quote you were referring to I believe. :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

Yes that's it..."damnable heresies" :tear:

Amazing that ANYONE, particularly those holding to the "doctrines of grace" could EVER state God "desires" sin in any way, shape or form. He so HATED it that He gave us His Son as a Sacrificial Lamb!

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

What exactly should be quarantined as "damnable heresies"?

TCG...do you think God desires sin? Would that constitute heresy in your view?

 

[webdog]

You have the gall to accuse me of something, but you're too lazy to substantiate it. That's pathetic beyond even your normal behavior.

I'll tell you what you're really doing. You can't see how God can plan sin without being the author of it, so on that basis, you accuse me of saying God is the author of sin.

On the same basis, I could accuse you of saying God is an idiot, God is incompetent, and accuse you of believing in open theism. You can deny it all you want. It doesn't matter, because using YOUR reasoning all I have to do is interpret your theology that way, and that gives me license to accuse you of actually saying God is stupid, incompetent, etc.

You need a swift kick.

I'm putting you on ignore, webdog. Your pathetic pride and inability to admit when you're wrong is too much for me.

Since I'm now on ignore, maybe someone can relate this to you. Even IF calvinism were true, and your view truth...this kind of condescending attitude, hate and general disdain for your fellow brother would lead me to NEVER want to be associated with calvinism and what is known as the Doctines of GRACE. I know on another thead you stated you wanted me to hate you (no clue why any Christ follower would want a brother in Christ to blatantly commit sin), but I don't.

 

[TCGreek]

TCG...do you think God desires sin? Would that constitute heresy in your view?

1. At one level we cannot escape God's decree that there be sin (Luke 22:22).

2. But at another level we cannot say God causes people to sin, for the Bible says God tempts no one to do evil and that His eyes are too pure to behold evil (Jas 1:13; Hab. 1:13).

3. I don't think this is what npet. is arguing.

 

[webdog]

1. At one level we cannot escape God's decree that there be sin (Luke 22:22).

2. But at another level we cannot say God causes people to sin, for the Bible says God tempts no one to do evil and that His eyes are too pure to behold evil (Jas 1:13; Hab. 1:13).

3. I don't think this is what npet. is arguing.

If you go back and read the thread carefully, I believe that's exactly what he's saying.

Do you think God desires sin?

 

[TCGreek]

If you go back and read the thread carefully, I believe that's exactly what he's saying.

Do you think God desires sin?

Webdog,

I am not trying to dodge your question, but what do you mean by God desires sin?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

1. At one level we cannot escape God's decree that there be sin (Luke 22:22).

2. But at another level we cannot say God causes people to sin, for the Bible says God tempts no one to do evil and that His eyes are too pure to behold evil (Jas 1:13; Hab. 1:13).

3. I don't think this is what npet. is arguing.

Have you checked your reference of Luke 22:22?

22And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

This has NOTHING to do with any support for the claim that God decreed that there be sin. This is referring to the betrayal of Christ and the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Stating God decrees that there be sin again is a reflection of the misunderstanding of the nature of Divine decrees. God does NOT decree that there be sin. God decrees to PERMIT sin. But the passage itself offers a violation of the text at best to support this claim.

 

[TCGreek]

Have you checked your reference of Luke 22:22?



This has NOTHING to do with any support for the claim that God decreed that there be sin. This is referring to the betrayal of Christ and the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Stating God decrees that there be sin again is a reflection of the misunderstanding of the nature of Divine decrees. God does NOT decree that there be sin. God decrees to PERMIT sin. But the passage itself offers a violation of the text at best to support this claim.

Did God go to sleep and then opened His eyes, only to discover that man had sinned?