1. 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!

Calvinism makes God the author of sin!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by aa0310, Feb 9, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 4
  1. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT Guest

    Hi Larry;
    This is really an insult to the act that Christ laid down His life for us all.

    There's that wavering contradiction is again Man comiting sin that pleases the Father. When ungodly men can't do anything to Please Him. You just keep right on proving me right about the heritical doctrine of Calvinism and how it wavers when a debate is a stake. The bruising of Christ wasn't what please God but the willingness of Christ to allow it for the Love He has for man.
    I understand you don't see this but it's because you don't even have a clue what real Love is. Your view of Love is making it happen forcefully

    There you go again applying stipulations to make it more agreeable. You must be a sales man on the side. Your doctrine dictates that man in His natural state can do nothing that is pleasing to God. The meaning of "nothing" is nada No Thing.

    Oh but I have learned. That I don't ever want to be a Calvinist. Thank God I'm not. I don't hate Calvinist I do hate Calvinism because it isn't the truth of the Bible.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
    Mike :D
     
    #41 ILUVLIGHT, Feb 10, 2005
  2. BrotherJoe

    BrotherJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Matt, Brother Mike, and Brother aa0310 have been repeatedly critical of many people on this board who hold to God's absolute sovereigty, but I notice none of these brothers seem to offer any alternative solutions!

    It is the purpose of this post to give these brothers a chance to do just that-offer alternative solutions. Here are a few questions I have related to the topic, and I would be very much interested in any replies to these questions by these brothers:

    1) Whether God willed to permit sin; or willed not to permit sin?

    2)Whether God could, or could not have prevented sin from entering the universe?

    3)Did God willingly permit Adam to sin, or was God unwilling to permit Adam to sin?

    Finally, some on this board have asserted that whomever believes the doctrine that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, must then conclude that God is also the author of sin. However, as I will show,this conclusion is not a necessary consequence for those who hold to God ordaining all things.

    According to the Bible , "sin is the transgression of the Law of God."(1 John 3:4) None of us on hear who believe the doctrine that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass have asserted that God broke his own law by eating of the forbidden fruit in the garden, have we? The command from God was to not eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Who did eat of this tree, God or Adam? Who then is the author of sin in this example? That would be man not God!

    God bless,

    Brother Joe
     
    #42 BrotherJoe, Feb 10, 2005
  3. BrotherJoe

    BrotherJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    AA0310 to Brother Joe:
    Again, the Calvinist contradicts their own “theology”. I tought that according to Calvinism, man does NOT have a free will?

    Brother Joe: For clarification,I am not a calvinist,I am a Primitive Baptist. There is a major difference in both doctrines and historical origin for these two groups.

    With that said, I do believe man has a free will. By free will, I take the definition of man possessing a will that is free to choose according to the desires of his heart. The problem is prior to becoming born again man's desires are evil! Therefore,a man is in bondage to his own wicked desires unless and until God gives him a new heart to enable him to desire God.

    AAO310 to Brother Joe:
    You say that “God could ordain sin” do you people actually know what you are talking about? Do you guys ever stop to see what you are saying? This is nothing short of blasphemy! Do you happen to know what “ordain” means? How can you say that God “ordains” sin, and yet He is not the author of sin?


    Brother Joe:
    Firstly, it must be emphasized I do not define "ordain" in the same manner as you. By ordain I do not mean "CAUSED", but simply "willed to permit." I do not believe God works fresh evil in man's heart thereby causing him to sin.

    In answer to your question," How can you say that God “ordains” sin, and yet He is not the author of sin?" I say this because according to the Bible , "sin is the transgression of the law."(1 John 3:4) None of us on hear who believe the doctrine that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass have claimed that God broke his own law by eating of the forbidden fruit in the garden, have we? This would be rediculous. The command from God was to not eat of the tree of Good and Evil. Who did eat of this tree? Was it God or Adam? Who then is the author of sin in this example if sin is defined in the Biblical definition as "a transgression of the law?" That would be man not God!

    Also, it must also be stressed that God's will that sin be allowed into existence for a season is not evil because without the existence of sin, God could not have demonstrated his most devine plan of forgiveness and love to man. That is, without the existence of sin, it would have been impossible that the God man Jesus Christ could have come down from heaven to die for the forgivenss of sins for us his most unworthy people. This act is the highest act of forgivenss and love that is or ever will be known to man and could not have happened if God had chosen to not will to allow sin to come into existence.

    Indeed, we can both agree that we serve a most righteous God in whom there is no evil. He can and does brings good out of even the most evil acts of men. What is wrong with this? Remember how Joseph's brothers tried to murder him by throwing him in a pit? We read in Genesis 50:17, "Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren,and their sin; for they did unto thee evil:" How did Joseph reply to this? He states, "20But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." (Genesis 50:20)

    God bless,

    Brother Joe
     
    #43 BrotherJoe, Feb 11, 2005
  4. BrotherJoe

    BrotherJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Joe- Just a quick edit to my post that is two posts prior to this one. I notice I errored by writing, ""sin is the transgression of the Law of God."(1 John 3:4) After double checking this verse, I found it actually states "sin is the trangression of the law". I tried to edit it, but it was to late so I am posting this correction.

    Brother Joe
     
    #44 BrotherJoe, Feb 11, 2005
  5. BrotherJoe

    BrotherJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Mike,

    Good to chat with you again! Unfortunatly, I dont get as much time as in the past to chat with you guys on here, but am glad to be back!With that said...back to the action...

    Brother Mike said:
    But you see God isn't in control of this world, Men and Satan is, and will be until Christ returns

    BrotherJoe: While it is true the Bible tells us satan is "the prince of this world" (John 16:11) and that "that the whole world is under the control of the evil one." (1 John 5:19) It is also true that God is in control of satan (Job 1:12, Romans 16:20, 1 John 3:8,Rev 20:2, 20:10). Therefore, in an ultimately real since, you must conclude that God is in control of this world since he controls satan who rules over it.

    A)Satan conrols this World (1 John 5:19)

    B) God conrols Satan
    (Job 1:12, Romans 16:20, 1 John 3:8, Rev 20:2,and 20:10).

    C) Thus,God conrols this world.

    If A and B are true, then C must be true. If you do not believe C Brother Mike, then which do you reject A or B?

    3"4And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:34-35)

    God bless you Brother Mike!

    Brother Joe
     
    #45 BrotherJoe, Feb 11, 2005
  6. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Bro Joe, if by 'ordains', you mean 'wills to permit', then, yes, God 'ordains' sin. But that is not my understanding of that word, and I don't think it is the understanding of the Calvinist posters here, either. The 'permission to sin' that is 'willed' by God here in my view gives Man the freedom to choose Christ or not.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
    #46 Matt Black, Feb 11, 2005
  7. ILUVLIGHT

    ILUVLIGHT Guest

    Brother Joe;
    This thread is about God as the author of sin. It isn't about anything else If you would like for me to answer your questions start another thread with a proper title.
    May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
    Mike [​IMG]
     
    #47 ILUVLIGHT, Feb 11, 2005
  8. aa0310

    aa0310 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    THERE ARE FOUR MAJOR VIEWS ON THE "DECREES" OF GOD. ALL OF WHICH CANNOT BE BIBLICAL!


    The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on this.

    SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.
    Supralapsarianism is sometimes mistakenly equated with "double predestination." The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to "double predestination"—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4). But more often, the expression "double predestination" is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. (There's an even more sinister form of "double predestination," which suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy.)
    This view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Though all who hold such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself is not a necessary ramification of supralapsarianism.
    Supralapsarianism is also sometimes wrongly equated with hyper-Calvinism. All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, though not all supras are hyper-Calvinists.
    Supralapsarianism is sometimes called "high" Calvinism, and its most extreme adherents tend to reject the notion that God has any degree of sincere goodwill or meaningful compassion toward the non-elect. Historically, a minority of Calvinists have held this view.
    But Boettner's comment that "there is not more than one Calvinist in a hundred that holds the supralapsarian view," is no doubt an exaggeration. And in the past decade or so, the supralapsarian view seems to have gained popularity.

    INFRALAPSARIANISM (also known sometimes as "sublapsarianism") suggests that God's decree to permit the fall logically preceded His decree of election. So when God chose the elect and passed over the non-elect, He was contemplating them all as fallen creatures.
    Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election.
    Robert Reymond, himself a supralapsarian, proposes the following refinement of the supralapsarian view:
    Notice that in addition to reordering the decrees, Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners. Reymond writes, "In this scheme, unlike the former [the classic supra- order], God is represented as discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply as men. (See Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 489). Reymond's refinement avoids the criticism most commonly leveled against supralapsarianism—that the supralapsarian has God damning men to perdition before He even contemplates them as sinners. But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)
    All the major Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the supra position. (This whole issue was hotly debated throughout the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, an ardent supralapsarian and chairman of the Assembly, ably defended his view. But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism.)
    "Bavinck has pointed out that the supralapsarian presentation 'has not been incorporated in a single Reformed Confession' but that the infra position has received an official place in the Confessions of the churches" (Berkouwer, Divine Election, 259).
    Louis Berkhof's discussion of the two views (in his Systematic Theology) is helpful, though he seems to favor supralapsarianism. I take the Infra view, as did Turretin, most of the Princeton theologians, and most of the leading Westminster Seminary men (e.g., John Murray). These issues were at the heart of the "common grace" controversy in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Herman Hoeksema and those who followed him took such a rigid supralapsarian position that they ultimately denied the very concept of common grace.
    Finally, see the chart (above), which compares these two views with Amyraldism (a kind of four-point Calvinism) and Arminianism. My notes on each view (below) identify some of the major advocates of each view.
    Supralapsarianism

    * Beza held this view. Although he is often credited with formulating the supralapsarian position, he did not.

    * Other historic proponents include Gomarus, Twisse, Perkins, Voetus, Witsius, and Comrie.

    * Louis Berkhof sees value in both views, but seems to lean slightly toward supralapsarianism (Systematic Theology, 120-25).

    * Karl Barth felt supralapsarianism was more nearly correct than infralapsarianism.
    * Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith takes the supralapsarian view and includes a lengthy defense of supralapsarianism.
    * Turretin says supralapsarianism is "harsher and less suitable" than infralapsarianism. He believes it "does not appear to agree sufficiently with [God's] unspeakable goodness" (Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, 418).

    * Herman Hoeksema and the entire leadership of the Protestant Reformed Churches (including Homer Hoeksema, Herman Hanko, and David Engelsma) are determined supralapsarians—often arguing both implicitly and explicitly that supralapsarianism is the only logically consistent scheme. This presumption clearly contributes to the PRC's rejection of common grace.
    * In fact, the same arguments used in favor of Supralapsarianism have been employed against common grace. So supralapsarianism may have in it a tendency that is hostile to the idea of common grace. (It is a fact that virtually all who deny "common grace" are supralapsarians.)

    * Supralapsarianism is the position of all who hold to the harshest sort of "double predestination."
    * It is hard to find exponents of supralapsarianism among the major systematic theologians. But the tide among some of the more modern authors may be turning toward the supra- view. Berkhof was sympathetic to the view; Reymond expressly defends it.

    * R. A. Webb says supralapsarianism is "abhorrent to metaphysics, to ethics, and to the scriptures. It is propounded in no Calvinistic creed and can be charged only upon some extremists" ( Christian Salvation, 16). While I am sympathetic to Webb's infra- convictions, I think he grossly exaggerates the case against supralapsarianism. [Webb is a 19th-cent. southern Presbyterian.]

    Infralapsarianism

    * This view is also called "sublapsarianism."

    * John Calvin said some things that seem to indicate he would have been in sympathy with this view, though the debate did not occur in his lifetime (see Calvin's Calvinism, trans. by Henry Cole, 89ff; also William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 364ff)

    * W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, L. Boettner, and Anthony Hoekema held this view.

    * Both R. L. Dabney and William Cunningham lean decidedly to this view but resist arguing the point. They believe the whole debate goes beyond scripture and is therefore unnecessary. Dabney, for example, says "This is a question which ought never to have been raised" (Systematic Theology, 233). Twisse, the supralapsarian, virtually agreed with this. He called the difference "merely apex logicus, a point of logic. And were it not a mere madness to make a breach of unity or charity in the church merely upon a point of logic?" (cited in Cunningham, The Reformers, 363). G.C. Berkouwer also agrees: "We face here a controversy which owes its existence to a trespassing of the boundaries set by revelation." Berkouwer wonders aloud whether we are "obeying the teaching of Scripture if we refuse to make a choice here" (Divine Election, 254-55).

    * Thornwell does not agree that the issue is moot. He says the issue "involves something more than a question of logical method. It is really a question of the highest moral significance. . . . Conviction and hanging are parts of the same process, but it is something more than a question of arrangement whether a man shall be hung before he is convicted" (Collected Writings, 2:20). Thornwell is vehemently infralapsarian.

    * Infralapsarianism was affirmed by the synod of Dordt but only implied in the Westminster standards. Twisse, a supralapsarian, was the first president of the Westminster Assembly, which evidently decided the wisest course was to ignore the controversy altogether (though Westminster's bias was arguably infralapsarian) . The Westminster Confession, therefore, along with most of the Reformed Creeds, implicitly affirmed what the Synod of Utrecht (1905) would later explicitly declare: "That our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation, [but] this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation."

    Amyraldism

    * Amyraldism(is the preferred spelling, not AmyraldIANism).
    * Amyraldism is the doctrine formulated by Moise Amyraut, a French theologian from the Saumur school. (This same school spawned another aggravating deviation from Reformed orthodoxy: Placaeus' view involving the mediate imputation of Adam's guilt).
    * By making the decree to atone for sin logically antecedent to the decree of election, Amyraut could view the atonement as hypothetically universal, but efficacious for the elect alone. Therefore the view is sometimes called "hypothetical universalism."
    * Puritan Richard Baxter embraced this view, or one very nearly like it. He seems to have been the only major Puritan leader who was not a thoroughgoing Calvinist. Some would dispute whether Baxter was a true Amyraldian. (See, e.g. George Smeaton, The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991 reprint], Appendix, 542.) But Baxter seemed to regard himself as Amyraldian.

    * This is a sophisticated way of formulating "four-point Calvinism," while still accounting for an eternal decree of election.

    * But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism." In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)
    * A. H.Strong held this view (Systematic Theology, 778). He called it (incorrectly) "sublapsarianism."

    * Henry Thiessen, evidently following Strong, also mislabeled this view "sublapsarianism" (and contrasted it with "infralapsarianism") in the original edition of his Lectures in Systematic Theology (343). His discussion in this edition is very confusing and patently wrong at points. In later editions of his book this section was completely rewritten.
    Arminianism

    * Henry Thiessen argued for essentially this view in the original edition of his Systematic Theology. The revised edition no longer explicitly defends this order of the decrees, but Thiessen's fundamental Arminianism is still clearly evident.
    * Most Arminian theologians decline to deal with God's eternal decree, and extreme Arminians even deny the very concept of an eternal decree. Those who acknowledge the divine decree, however, must end up making election contingent upon the believer's response to the call of the gospel. Indeed, this is the whole gist of Arminianism.
     
    #48 aa0310, Feb 11, 2005
  9. aa0310

    aa0310 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    I Agree. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding on the meanings of the important words dealing with this subject. I am sure that many hold to the view that God, while in complete control of all creation, yet, in His infinite Wisdom, "allows" certain things to take place, many of which are directly against His Holy nature. But these same people who hold such a view, when pressed to explain what they mean my "ordain", actually say that they understand by it noting more than "permit", or "allow"! I believe however, that with such important matters, we have to me very precise in exactly what we believe, and more importantly, teach others as based on the Word of Almighty God!
     
    #49 aa0310, Feb 11, 2005
  10. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does "control" mean "hands-ON" where nothing is 'automatic' or 'set in motion' and allowed to perform it's own function without direct intervention of God?

    Or does "control" mean that God established all, that is, each element having its own function and is left "Hands-OFF" for it to do its function within God's creation?

    With the first "hands-on" definition, God would cause you to raise the fork full of food to your mouth, would activate your chewing muscles for each chew, would activate your swallow muscles to cause the chewed food to pass down to your stomach and God would have to activate your digestion system to receive and process the food, and to "extract" the nutrition from the food, and pass the waste through your system, and alert you to find a place to expell the waste from your body. etc, etc, etc.

    With the second method, God established your body to do all those functions and God himself does not intervene in that process. You enjoy your food, obtained by your hand and processed by your body.

    Just how much control do you attribute to God?

    Seems to me that those who attribute total control to God are denying their role in life.

    [ February 11, 2005, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Wes, Outwest ]
     
    #50 Wes Outwest, Feb 11, 2005
  11. aa0310

    aa0310 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, clearly shows how warped the Calvinistic view of the character of God is. It states as shown below, that "God was pleased" that Adam and Eve sinned against Him!!! I am sure that the Calvinists will try to suggest that the word "pleased" really does not mean this, as they twist the meaning of "world" in places like John 3:16!

    *************************************************

    Quote:

    CHAPTER VI
    Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
    Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.

    Gen. iii. 13; 2 Cor. xi. 3; Rom. xi. 32.

    ************************************************
     
    #51 aa0310, Feb 11, 2005
  12. aa0310

    aa0310 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    God was "pleased to permit their fall". Does this mean that He was happy that man rebelled against Him. Genesis 6 clearly states that, "He was grieved in the heart"(verse 6). Or, are we to understand the meaning of "grieved" as "pleased"???
     
    #52 aa0310, Feb 11, 2005
  13. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    God was pleased according to his wise councel

    is the same as

    "If it please you, may I" and getting your petition granted!

    Don't make more of it than is actually stated!
     
    #53 Wes Outwest, Feb 11, 2005
  14. aa0310

    aa0310 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    "If it please you, may I", shows "agreement". Are you saying that God, in His wise council "agreed" to the fall? These is no watering-down what was said, as Calvinists do believe that the fall of man was "part of God's plan" for the world!
     
    #54 aa0310, Feb 11, 2005
  15. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    "If it please you, may I", shows "agreement". Are you saying that God, in His wise council "agreed" to the fall? These is no watering-down what was said, as Calvinists do believe that the fall of man was "part of God's plan" for the world! </font>[/QUOTE]What I am saying to you is don't make more of the statement than what is there!

    When I read the words you posted, I do not see it as God taking pleasure that man disobeyed God's command to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but rather that God, taking pleasure in His own councel, allowed it to happen, but NOT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!

    The sin of disobedience of God's command by man brought on the death of man, because man openly defied his creator God! "The Fall" as it mistakenly, in my opinion, called caused the eternal relationship of God and man to have an end. Man who was "designed" to have an eternal relationship with the creator, dies because of Sin, man's death, which is I believe the second death of Revelation 20, severs the eternal relationship between God and man! Since man sinned, it is sin that blocks the way to God, so man cannot by his own means "rejoin" with God in eternity. Even faith in God could not remove the obstacle that the penalty of sin placed between man and His God, and man could not be righteous enough or do enought good works, to not sin and thus merit on his own a relationship with God. That is why it was God's plan from before the foundation of the world to have a Redeeming Sacrificial Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. Jesus is that Lamb of God who HAS TAKEN away the penalty of sin. The Obstacle that blocked eternal life has been removed. Thus, man through faith in God, can have everlasting life again with God because of the Atonement for sin provided by Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God.
     
    #55 Wes Outwest, Feb 11, 2005
  16. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, the Arminian double standard rears its ugly head once again! Why is that "world" always means all people without exception and "all" always means "all" in a wooden literal sense when it comes to the atonement and election, but, when you get to the providence of God, those words suddenly become vastly equivocated and the Scriptures explained away. Answer: your lopsided, Romish notions of God and your imposition of ethics not derived from the exegesis of the Scriptures.

    Where does Scripture teach libertine free will? Hint: It does not. Where does Scripture teach that something can happen apart from the sovereign decree of God? Hint: If all things are created and sustained by God, then that means that God has ordained them. End of discussion. It is you that disbelieve Scripture, not us.

    God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

    This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28). (Piper)

    Dozens of Scriptures say that God indirectly brought about some kind of evil. Gen. 50:20, Ex. 4:21, Ex. 9:12, Ex. 14:4, Ex 14:8, Ex 8:15, 32, 9:34, Ps. 105:25; Josh 11:20, Judg 3:12, 9:23, Judg. 14:4, 1 Sam. 2:25, 1 Sam 16:14, 2 Sam. 12:11-12, 16:22, 2 Sam 24. Amos 4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11, Jonah 1:15 and 2:3, Acts 2:23, 2 Thess.2:11 -12, Prov. 16:4, Rom. 9:14-24, Ps 76:10, Luke 22:22, Mt. 26L:24, Mark 14:21, Heb. 1:3 says Christ Himself upholds ALL THINGS by the word of His power. Since when did ALL THINGS in that context not mean ALL things? There is nothing in that text that would lead you to say it is "some" things, or "all things except the existence of evil). The list could go on and on. The Bible is clear, God ordains and uses evil to accomplish His sovereign purposes, but He Himself does not create fresh evil in the hearts of men in order to accomplish it. This in no way makes God the author of evil. To be the author of evil, you must show that God Himself created fresh evil in the hearts of men, demons, and Satan in order to accomplish that goal. No Scriptures say that. They do, however, speak of God raising up men and nations and hardening mens hearts, and shaping some individuals specifically for the purpose of destruction and others for mercy.

    God did not make Adam and Eve fall from grace. They did, but this must have been ordained by God, or it could not have happened. He created them innnocent and mutable, prone to good or evil. Their innocence was good, yet they sinned against God. This occurred outside His preceptive will, but certainly within His sovereign will, or it could not have happened. God is, BY DEFINITION, the uncaused cause of all that is. Nothing can exist apart from Him. It is logically impossible.

    God did not coerce Adam to commit sin and fall, but he certainly ordained it. Even an Arminian who thinks that God merely allowed the fall, must admit that before God created the world he already knew what the future would be, and so it was within his Providence for such events to take place, for he could just have easily decided to prevent the fall...but He didn't. But we believe that while God did not make man sin coersively he certainly ordained such events to occur. Consider that if God did not decree the fall then evil is something completely outside His sovereign control ... If evil came into the universe by surprise for God, totally apart from His providence, then there are some things He does not know or things He is powerless over and therefore God would, by definition, lack omniscience and omnipotence. And then how do we know whether He will be able to defeat evil in the future if evil is outside God's control even though the Scripture plainly says that God ordains all events that come to pass (Eph 1:11). (Hendryx)

    God did not create fresh evil in the hearts of Joseph's brothers, yet God shaped their evil acts for His own ends. God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God governs all the nations and He himself, according to His own words raised up Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel and Judah. These nations did great evil, yet God laid the moral blame for their evil at their feet. God clearly says that all the events of the crucifixion were predestined by Him. These are plain truths that need no explaining away. Just because we do not understand them does not mean they are not true.

    You all say that we believe God ordains sin, but you twist that to mean we believe God is the author of sin. However, by taking the position that people believe for uncaused reasons and sin outside of God's sovereign decree YOU take the position of true fatalism, because all those choices are controlled by chance and impersonal forces. God, however, says the urim and thumin itself are under His control. You take the side of ROME. How dare, you call yourselves Protestants. You believe in salvation by chance, not salvation by grace. You say God values free will over men's lives. You say man controls His salvation. Hmmm, God does not ordain sin. He does not ordain the salvation of any individual. Why then be God? This is not a God worth worshipping, beecause He clearly does not value human life and He clearly has no control over anything. He only has control over the good, but not even that much, since the good of men's individual salvation is left to themselves and not to God. Yet none of you hold to Open Theism do you? You believe that people are responsible for not only what they do themselves, but what others do as well. Talk about injustice!

    Why can God NOT work in the way that Calvinists say? Moreover, how can evil exist at all if God does not want it? You say that the entrance of evcil into the world was not according to the will of God. If evil happens in spite of the fact that God does not want it to happen, then does this not mean God is not omnipotent? He wanted to prevent evil but was unable to do so? Typically, the answer is that God was able to prevent eveil but He chose to allow for the possibility of evil in order to guarantee that angels and humans would have the freedom necessary for meaningful choices. In other words, God HAD to do this? Once again, we find that, even in your view God is ordaining evil by ordaining the existence of the free agents that cause it. In fact, that is the EXACT position to which Calvinists hold. Only the Open Theists hold to something different. (If any of you would bother to read the Remonstrance, you will find an assent to the Reformed theology of God and His providence). However, if you hold that God must necessarily allow for the possibility of evil in his creations in order to ensure their freedom to make meaninful choices, then this implies that even in heaven we will face a real possibility of doing evil too, thus rebelling against God and losing our salvation. After all, if meaningful choices necessarily allow for this kind of freedom, then no man is free even in heaven if he can not sin. Also, if real choices have to allow for the possibility to do evil, then God's choices are not real or He is free to do evil. Moreover, if evil exists IN SPITE OF and APART FROM the sovereign decree of Almighty God, then how can you be sure He will triumph over evil in the end. If it arose shortly after creation, might it not rise up again?
     
    #56 GeneMBridges, Feb 11, 2005
  17. aa0310

    aa0310 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Gene

    Without dealing with all of your points, most of which are "old hat", and common to the Calvinist reply!

    I would yet again ask this one important question, which I hope that you, or some other Calvinist, would care to reply to.

    It is very simple, I assume that we all understand plain English on this board, and want this dealt with plainly, without any Calvinistic cunning!

    I keep reading that God "ordains" sin, but no one has explained what this exactly means? I have already shown, that the meaning from the Random House English dictionary gives the meaning as follows: "to decree or order; to destine or predestine; to order or command". Is this what you and the other Calvinists say that is meant by "ordains" sin? If so, then how can you say that this does not make God the author of sin? To "decree" is "a formal and authoritative order having the force of law"; and to "order" means that God so commanded that we sin! How then could God be said to "decree", or "order", or "ordain" that we sin, and yet He is not the author? Please do not stretch the English language to accommodate your twisted Calvinistic nonsense! Do not try to make the language say something that it does not say! You ought to quit using language of God that does not teach us what the Bible says about His character.

    I await a response
     
    #57 aa0310, Feb 12, 2005
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This has been explained in many many place for hundreds of years. The fact that you don't accept the explanations does not mean that no one has explained it. The Bible makes it clear that all things come from God (Rom 11:36; Eph 1:11; Psa 115:3; etc). It would take an immense twisting of words to say that sin is not one of "all things." You are trying to force God to fit your conceptions of what God ought to be like. That is not submission to God's revelation.
     
    #58 Pastor Larry, Feb 12, 2005
  19. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    aa0310,
    I am not Calvinist, but where would sin come from it God had not established it!

    You would have to say that sin coexisted with God before God's creation of the heavens. Where in scripture does one find such a declaration?

    Sin needs to be a created thing because sin and evil will be cast into the lack of fire. Revelation 20.
     
    #59 Wes Outwest, Feb 12, 2005
  20. johnp.

    johnp. New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello aa0310.

    Nice to see an open mind for once! :cool:
    "to predestine or destine as part of a divine plan, by the force of circumstances, or as necessary in the nature of things"
    "ordain." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (13 Feb. 2005)

    Someone said somewhere that when a Calvinist is pushed on 'ordain' they end up in the position of making the word mean 'permission'.
    But this position is entrenched in Calvinism that God ordains, that is: He steps aside while someone else does something naughty and then comdemns them. That to me does not sound like the God I have come to know but people do not like the titles given to those that believe ordain means ordain! Hyper! Extremist! Fundamentalist! Unorthodox! Heretic!
    Not that He created us to be able to do what we know instinctively to be right but creates us all incabable of doing right. This, my conception, was a creating of fresh evil. It was because at the moment of my conception I was not connected to the source of life which is the greatest of evils and for which I get the blame! I'm not saying that is wrong, that I was conceived as such and receive the punishment of such. God is Sovereign. What I am saying is that is the way it is and we have to deal with that.
    Paul does. "Why does God still blame us." Is a valid question. His answer is, "Who are you to talk back to God."
    Our answer is to mold 'ordain' into permission otherwise we think God will be tainted. This is wrong because we are putting limits on God's Sovereignty.

    But the biggest wonder of all to me is why does an Arminian want to prove that God is Sovereign? :cool: Because that is what you are doing. If all the Calvinists suddenly agree with you about ordaining what are you going to do, become one of us? :cool:

    johnp.
     
    #60 johnp., Feb 13, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 4
Loading...