Calvinists... do you have a problem with the concept that God is the ultimate...

[Iconoclast]

webdog

Being sovereign means being in control, not controlling.

God can be both if need be;
Gen 20;
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

8 Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.

9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.

When one comes to this realization they understand your doctrine

,

I believe if someone truly understands the scriptural teaching they will embrace this doctrine.



and at that point either continue believing

A. God authors sin

,
No calvinist and no historic confession will ever believe that this is even possible,and yet , it gets brought forward as if it is a viable point of contention. Itrust God in all his Holy attributes.:thumbsup:

B. My doctrine is quite inconsistent in understanding God's sovereignty

, or
My doctrine is found directly in the word of God...I just desire to know more of Jesus and his teaching.

C. Get out of Dodge

.

I am very comfortable in the understanding of these truths as most all of the professing church has been since, the reformation....re-discovering Apostolic teaching. No need to Get out of Dodge....but rather lenghten the cord and strengthen the stakes...Zions rule is going worldwide, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it......I am there for the long haul...all the way home:thumbsup:

Which camp are you still in?

The camp of the saints who have always believed these truths..there is plenty of room...for everyone believing the truth of God:love2:

 

[Iconoclast]

No matter how hard you flail away on a dead horse, it just sits there like monument to absurdity. I see the "sinners freely choose to sin" chestnut being posted yet again. Ludicrous! If we can only choose between this sin or that sin, we have no choice but to choose to sin. Therefore we are compelled by God to sin. Thus He becomes the author of sin. Petty simple really. To be a Calvinist you must embrace the ludicrous. The very idea that being able to choose between this sin and that sin yet have no choice but to choose sin makes us responsible for choosing to sin is ludicrous. Yet the premise is posted and reposted by Calvinists of all stripes.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::applause:

 

[saturneptune]

I agree. To make God the author of sin is to deny the holiness, the righteousness of God.

ditto and Amen.....

 

[saturneptune]

Here's a question that I don't think any of us has the ability to answer. If God wasn't desirious of things coming to pass the way He wanted them to, then why did He place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden?


I have heard, and read, that He did this so that they would have a choice to love Him, or not. But, I don't think the bible implicitly states this(I could be wrong here). If God didn't want this to happen, why did He place it there? Why not just have the Tree of Life, and not both tress there?

Okay, that's more than ONE question. Sue me!! :laugh:

In all seriousness, one of the best posts of the thread. All we have to do is let God be God. It is amazing how many created beings try to understand the deepest secrets of the Creator. The Lord let us know through His Word what He wanted us to know. Jaws can flap from now till eternity an opinion every second, and it is not going to change the nature of the Lord one iota.

 

[OldRegular]

In all seriousness, one of the best posts of the thread. All we have to do is let God be God. It is amazing how many created beings try to understand the deepest secrets of the Creator. The Lord let us know through His Word what He wanted us to know. Jaws can flap from now till eternity an opinion every second, and it is not going to change the nature of the Lord one iota.

And we are only going to know what God allows us to know. This is one thing I get from the Book of Job. Job had a lot of problems and asked a lot of questions. God responded to Job:

Job 38:1, 2
1. Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2. Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

I am afraid that verse 2 above applies to about 95%+ that is posted on this forum!

 

[quantumfaith]

Hey... I admit I am wrestling with the tension. I am just trying to face it as well.

Shall not the judge of the universe do what is right/just (Gen. 18:25)

Oh the tension of an antimony!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[WITBOTL]

I think Charnock's discourse on the Holiness of God is well worth reading and discusses much on this very topic. I'm not sure if he answers all the questions at all or to satisfaction but his analysis is good.

sorry for a long quote, but this is just a small sample of a great discussion:

Prov. IV. The holiness of God is not blemished by his secret will to suffer sin to enter into the world. God never willed sin by his preceptive will. It was never founded upon, or produced by any word of his, as the creation was. He never said, Let there be sin under the heaven, as he said, "Let there be water under the heaven."...

1. The will of God is in some sort concurrent with sin. He doth not properly will it, but he wills not to hinder it, to which, by his omnipotence, he could put a bar. If he did positively will it, it might be wrought by himself, and so could not be evil. If he did in no sort will it, it would not be committed by his creature; sin entered into the world, either God willing the permission of it, or not willing the permission of it. The latter cannot be said; for then the creature is more powerful than God, and can do that which God will not permit. God can, if he be pleased, banish all sin in a moment out of the world: he could have prevented the revolt of angels and the fall of man; they did not sin whether he would or no: he might, by his grace, have stepped in the first moment, and made a special impression upon them of the happiness they already possessed, and the misery they would incur by any wicked attempt. He could as well have prevented the sin of the fallen angels, and confirmed them in grace, as of those that continued in their happy state: he might have appeared to man, informed him of the issue of his design, and made secret impressions upon his heart, since he was acquainted with every avenue to his will. God could have ket all sin out of the world, as well as all creatures from breathing in it; he was as well able to bar sin forever out of the world, as to let creatures lin in the womb of nothing, wherein they were first wrapped. To say God doth will sin as he doth other things, is to deny his holiness; to say it entered without anything of his will, is to deny his omnipotence. If he did necessitate Adam to fall, what shall we thing of his purity? If Adam did fall without any concern of God's will in it, what shall we say of his sovereignty? The one taints his holiness, the other clips his power. If it came without anything of his will in it, and he did not forsee it, where is his omniscience? If it entered whether he would or no, where is his omnipotence (Rom. ix. 19)? "Who hath resisted his will?" There cannot be a lustful act in Abimelech, if God will withhold his power (Gen. xx. 6); " I withheld thee:" nor a cursing word in Balaam's mouth, unless God gave power to speak it (Numb. xxii. 38): "Have I now any power at all to say anything? The word that God puts in my mouth that shall I speak." As no action could be sinful, if God had not forbidden it; so no sin could be committed, if God did not will to give way to it.

2.God doth not will directly, and by an efficacious will. He doth not directly will it, because he hath prohibited it by his law, which is a discovery of his will: so that if he should directly will sin, and directly prohibit it, he would will good and evil in the same manner, and there would be a contradiction in God's will: to will sin absolutely, is to work it (Ps. cxv. 3): "God hath done whatsoever he pleased." God cannot absolutely will it, because he cannot work it. God wills good by a positive decree, because he hath decreed to effect it. He wills evil by a private decree, because he hath decreed not to give that grace which would certainly prevent it. God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it...

to will sin as sin, would be an unanswerable blemish on God; but to will to suffer it in order to good, is the glory of his wisdom; it could never have peeped up its head, unless there had been some decree of God concerning it. And there had been no decree of God concerning it, had he not intended to bring good and glory out of it...

... Now this permission is not the cause of sin, nor doth blemish the holiness of God. It doth not intrench upon the freedom of men but supposeth it, establisheth it, and leaves man to it. God acted nothing, but only ceased to act; and therefore could not be the efficient cause of man's sin. As God is not the author of good, but by willing and effecting it, so he is not the author of evil, but by willing and effecting it,: but he doth not positiviely will evil, nor effect it by any efficacy of his own. Permission is no action, nor the cause of that action which is permitted; but the will of that person who is permitted to do such an action is the cause.

 

[convicted1]

In all seriousness, one of the best posts of the thread. All we have to do is let God be God. It is amazing how many created beings try to understand the deepest secrets of the Creator. The Lord let us know through His Word what He wanted us to know. Jaws can flap from now till eternity an opinion every second, and it is not going to change the nature of the Lord one iota.

When I don't know something, I just don't know it....it's that plain and simple....just like me....more simple than plain.


In Nahum 1, Nahum writes that the clouds are the dust of His feet. If the clouds are the dust of His feet, wow. Look at how small dust is in comparison to us. And then carry that over to the comparison of the clouds and His feet. I know that this is figurative language, but try to wrap your mind around how big God is. And then try to figure Him out with our small, puny, finite minds. No wonder there are so many doctrines, and denoms.....people think they have it figured out, when in reality, they are a million miles away.......

 

[webdog]

God can be both if need be;
Gen 20;
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

8 Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.

9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.

First, that text does not prove anything other that He was in control of the situation. Saying He kept Abe from sinning doesn't equate to controlling, but the end result being just that.

I believe if someone truly understands the scriptural teaching they will embrace this doctrine.

You still continue to hold on to this fallacy? Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't mean they don't understand. Scores of godly men throughout history that disagree with your doctrine that understand it. You really need to give this argument a rest.

No calvinist and no historic confession will ever believe that this is even possible,and yet , it gets brought forward as if it is a viable point of contention. Itrust God in all his Holy attributes.

As this very thread shows, they will say it is not possible (some will) while denying free will (such as yourself) which is nothing more than a contradiction.

My doctrine is found directly in the word of God...I just desire to know more of Jesus and his teaching.

The Bible does not teach God is controlling every situation...it teaches He is in control of every situation.

I am very comfortable in the understanding of these truths as most all of the professing church has been since, the reformation....re-discovering Apostolic teaching. No need to Get out of Dodge....but rather lenghten the cord and strengthen the stakes...Zions rule is going worldwide, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it......I am there for the long haul...all the way home

Determinism is not truth.

The camp of the saints who have always believed these truths..there is plenty of room...for everyone believing the truth of God

Again, pure question begging. Jesus did not teach determinism, hence it cannot be truth.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No calvinist and no historic confession will ever believe that this is even possible,and yet , it gets brought forward as if it is a viable point of contention.

Icon...that is simply not true...there have been MANY very prominent Calvinist Theologians who absolutely DO believe that, and state as much...You are probably correct about there not being any "confessions" or "catechisms" which do. But there have been MANY Prominent Theologians (it is quite reasonably argued to include Calvin himself)....Who absolutely DO believe this. That is one of those reasons that it
1.) IS INDEED a "viable point of contention"
and
2.) Continues to be brought up by non-reformed detractors....It is a truth that there have been, and are many a Calvinist Theologian who essentially believe that.

They won't use the WORD "authored" (of course)....because they can't, but they will unabashedly claim as much. I can hardly concieve how you don't already know or admit at least this much.

 

[Greektim]

Here are some other thoughts and questions I am asking myself:

God ordained sin:

• Prov. 16:4 – The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

• Isa. 45:7 – I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create evil, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

• Lam. 3:38 – Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

• Amos 3:6 – Shall the horn be blown in a city, and the people not tremble? Shall evil befall a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Why does God do this??? (3 demonstrations in Romans)
1. To demonstrate his righteousness (3:5) – we can’t appreciate how good God is unless we are sinful and acknowledge the level of our depravity.
2. To demonstrate his love (5:8) – we could never appreciate the depth of God’s love unless we experienced it first-hand as sinners (it is easy to love a righteous person, 5:7)
3. To demonstrate his wrath & power (9:22) – this concept would be so foreign if there was never anyone to carry out his wrath upon. We could never appreciate God’s justice and power and wrath if there was no one who ever deserved it. We could not conceive of the vastness of God including his wrath and power.
Without sin, God would never be able to adequately demonstrate these most significant of characteristics.

In what sense is God the "creator" (best term???) of evil?

Does this mean God’s is evil for creating evil in some sense?

How does God's holiness remained untainted and unblemished if this is the reality? Is secondary/tertiary/proximate causation a legitimate answer or theological mind-easing?

 

[MorseOp]

Here are some other thoughts and questions I am asking myself:

God ordained sin:

• Prov. 16:4 – The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

• Isa. 45:7 – I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create evil, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

• Lam. 3:38 – Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?

• Amos 3:6 – Shall the horn be blown in a city, and the people not tremble? Shall evil befall a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Why does God do this??? (3 demonstrations in Romans)
1. To demonstrate his righteousness (3:5) – we can’t appreciate how good God is unless we are sinful and acknowledge the level of our depravity.
2. To demonstrate his love (5:8) – we could never appreciate the depth of God’s love unless we experienced it first-hand as sinners (it is easy to love a righteous person, 5:7)
3. To demonstrate his wrath & power (9:22) – this concept would be so foreign if there was never anyone to carry out his wrath upon. We could never appreciate God’s justice and power and wrath if there was no one who ever deserved it. We could not conceive of the vastness of God including his wrath and power.
Without sin, God would never be able to adequately demonstrate these most significant of characteristics.

In what sense is God the "creator" (best term???) of evil?

Does this mean God’s is evil for creating evil in some sense?

How does God's holiness remained untainted and unblemished if this is the reality? Is secondary/tertiary/proximate causation a legitimate answer or theological mind-easing?

I think you're having a problem with Old Testament phraseology. Evil is synonymous with calamity depending on the context. Go back to the blessings and curses of the law (Deut. 28). Could it be said that the LORD was bringing evil upon Israel for her disobedience? Yes. The question is whether evil proceeds forth from God's nature. Because God is holy I believe scripture has established the precedent that He is not evil, nor can evil come forth from Him. When you look on the evils of the Old Testament you may actually be looking at judgment. Because the judgment was often severe it would resonate as evil to Israel. This is one of the reasons why a wooden one-for-one literal translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic can get someone in trouble. Take the time to do a study on God's judgments and punishments of Israel and it may begin to shed light on evil supposedly coming forth from God.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Sin has it's consequences, now we argue about it. We should be more concerned with repentance, especially that God has demonstrated His love through the cross. We are all saved by Grace, well, from that stand point, let's get on with it and help people understand that a day of wrath is coming and that they need to believe the Gospel.

I guess we have been released from preaching the Gospel and are now at liberty to chase tails and argue theology till He comes.

 

[Greektim]

I think you're having a problem with Old Testament phraseology. Evil is synonymous with calamity depending on the context. Go back to the blessings and curses of the law (Deut. 28). Could it be said that the LORD was bringing evil upon Israel for her disobedience? Yes. The question is whether evil proceeds forth from God's nature. Because God is holy I believe scripture has established the precedent that He is not evil, nor can evil come forth from Him. When you look on the evils of the Old Testament you may actually be looking at judgment. Because the judgment was often severe it would resonate as evil to Israel. This is one of the reasons why a wooden one-for-one literal translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic can get someone in trouble. Take the time to do a study on God's judgments and punishments of Israel and it may begin to shed light on evil supposedly coming forth from God.

I'll quickly grant that semantically, calamity could easily be substituted in those cases. However, even the concept of calamity is a result of sin. No sin means no calamities. So there is still in some sense God using something evil for good. I wouldn't call it "ends justifies the means" so to speak but closer to justice. But it still says that God is the one doing this terrible things (things that exist only b/c sin exists). So what do we make of that?

 

[Benjamin]

I'll quickly grant that semantically, calamity could easily be substituted in those cases. However, even the concept of calamity is a result of sin. No sin means no calamities.

Calamity can be a divine response to sin. Any theological concept attributing punishment or calamity for sin without divine righteous judgment, meaning a theory which neglects the origin of the responsibility for that sin and suggests our Holy God is responsible for that sin fails miserably and is known as “Theological Fatalism”.

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
(Deu 32:4)

So there is still in some sense God using something evil for good. I wouldn't call it "ends justifies the means" so to speak but closer to justice.

God brings about good in the face of evil, that is how he might “use” evil for good, but He is not ever the originating cause of evil. God’s creation is perfect, He does not and did not “miss the mark” in creation.

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
(Deu 32:4)

But it still says that God is the one doing this terrible things (things that exist only b/c sin exists).

I am really surprised at the implication here as I commonly would only find reason to attribute the one defining God as a creator of evil to come from a Hard Determinist, either directly or indirectly, no matter, the substance of the conclusion is placing the responsibility of evil on God by simple logic and leads to fatalism going right to the core of their theology.

God is Truth, He could no more create evil than make a square circle, or not be Truth. A simple comparison to scripture bears the Divine nature of God out: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment, a God of truth and without inequity, just and right is He.” Deut 32:4

His work is perfect:
H8549
תּמים
tâmîym
taw-meem'
From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.

Without iniquity:
H5766
עלהעולהעולהעולעול
‛evel ‛âvel ‛avlâh ‛ôlâh ‛ôlâh
eh'-vel, aw'-vel, av-law', o-law', o-law'
From H5765; (moral) evil: - iniquity, perverseness, unjust (-ly), unrighteousness (-ly), wicked (-ness).

Another important point I would make is “create evil” does not translate to moral evil---but in contrast to “peace” such as war, calamity or disaster, pestilence.

In Isaiah 45:7 (“and create evil”) when looking into the context God is making a glorious promise to Cyrus and contending with those that hinder Him with a curse. God is telling them to contend with their fellow creatures and not with their Creator. He makes peace, (that’s what He does) and creates evil (and this is the result) He tells them He is the Lord and is instructing them to do these things and follows by giving them a “woe” for striving against Him.

So what do we make of that?

I make of it that if you are attributing evil to God that you seriously need to check your motives for doing so and suggest it has become a necessity to logically support your theological system of Determism and that such is rooted in pride and the traditions and philosophy of men. I credit you in seeing the tension between Calvinism and the Nature of God. But, if you are thinking about trying to support your theological system by attributing evil to God that you drop to your knees and ask His forgiveness for such a motive.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(Col 2:8)

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I'll quickly grant that semantically, calamity could easily be substituted in those cases. However, even the concept of calamity is a result of sin. No sin means no calamities. So there is still in some sense God using something evil for good. I wouldn't call it "ends justifies the means" so to speak but closer to justice. But it still says that God is the one doing this terrible things (things that exist only b/c sin exists). So what do we make of that?

I think that Greek is on to something here Morse...and although, your basic premise is correct....If I understand it, it is that verbally, "calmaity and evil" are inter-changeable in the Hebrew. This is true, but that is the nature of the language. The Hebrew uses ( I think) ONE word to describe either the notion of "young woman" or "virgin" or "soprano"....I believe I am correct when I explain that Hebrew uses only the word "Almah" interrchangeably when it is describing those things...It really makes sense actually:

Hebrew thought works like this, I think:

1.) A "young" woman is probably not married
2.) An "unmarried" woman should be or is assumed to be a virgin
3.) "Young" women are often those still easily capable of (at least pleasantly) singing and carrying the "Soprano" line of a Psalm or song....
4.) Thus, when a Psalm says that the instructions are "For Almah" or, "the virgins"...it is saying that it is the job of the "Sopranos" in modern parlance to carry the melody!!!!!!!

What I am saying is that it might (in instances) be a better choice Theologically to understand what the translators were saying in native tongue as the precision of English simply did not exist in Hebrew...Hebrew was designed to convey and assume a lot of context...thus, when we debate the meaning of a Hebrew word...we must be careful not to inadvertently be guilty of some "equivocation" because Hebrew was decidedly NOT designed to convey quite the precision of say, the Greek, or even modern English.

I think your post, although quite honestly meant, fails to distinguish the unique nature of THAT language...And is inadvertently guilty of some "equivocation" here. Even though Hebrew often uses the same word for (related, but not the same) meanings....we still have to study context to exegete it....I think that, although not "perfect"...the KJV translators were absolutely masterful with their translation of the Hebrew.

I believe GreekTim answered you correctly here:

I'll quickly grant that semantically, calamity could easily be substituted in those cases. However, even the concept of calamity is a result of sin. No sin means no calamities. So there is still in some sense God using something evil for good.

Basically, "precision" in a language like Hebrew doesn't really exist, although depth and a veritable pregnancy of meaning does...So, I don't think we should exercise our basically "Greek"/"Westernized" mindset to be-labour the meanings of O.T. Hebrew words. Truthfully, I think an understanding of Hebrew can usually be used to "BROADEN" the meaning of a word, but rarely can it be used to restrict it.

 

[MorseOp]

I'll quickly grant that semantically, calamity could easily be substituted in those cases. However, even the concept of calamity is a result of sin. No sin means no calamities. So there is still in some sense God using something evil for good. I wouldn't call it "ends justifies the means" so to speak but closer to justice. But it still says that God is the one doing this terrible things (things that exist only b/c sin exists). So what do we make of that?

Sometimes God allows man to experience the horrible effects of sin by removing His restraining hand. In that sense God is not the first cause. Romans 1 paints this picture by God delivering man over to the depravity of his own mind. In other words, sinful man reaps what he sows.

The question we don't have an answer for is why does God allow sin to exist? Scripture is silent on that question. My personal speculation is that God's triumph over sin brings more glory to His name. Since there is no other being deserving of such glory this is not an act of conceit or narcissism on God's part. It is right that God is glorified.

 

[Greektim]

Sometimes God allows man to experience the horrible effects of sin by removing His restraining hand. In that sense God is not the first cause. Romans 1 paints this picture by God delivering man over to the depravity of his own mind. In other words, sinful man reaps what he sows.

The question we don't have an answer for is why does God allow sin to exist? Scripture is silent on that question. My personal speculation is that God's triumph over sin brings more glory to His name. Since there is no other being deserving of such glory this is not an act of conceit or narcissism on God's part. It is right that God is glorified.

Allow me then to philosophize a moment...

The statement "God allow sin to exist" seems to me logically only to mean that he is the ultimate cause. How else can you explain away God's perfect knowledge and foresight of all events and choice AND YET he creates it anyways? Or to say it another way, if evil was just an effect of a volitional capacity for man to reject or accept God (not my belief btw), and God knew absolutely before creation that man would reject, then that rejection was a predetermined thing that must happen since God cannot be wrong.

So to allow sin to exist is just another way to get to the idea that God predetermined it and went forward with it anyways.

or

You could say that God allowed sin to exist via Satan. And yet the same option for Satan applies as above. God created Satan knowing perfectly what would happen and therefore it must happen. Plus, the cause of Satan is God, and therefore it could be said that God is a secondary albeit ultimate cause of sin.

 

[Winman]

Allowing a person free will does not make God responsible for sin.

An analogy;

The law allows all of us of age to drive a motor vehicle. In order for a motor vehicle to safely cruise at 65-70 MPH it is necessary to make a car capable of going much faster than the posted limit, thus, most cars are built able to go at least 100 MPH or much more.

Does that make the manufacturer of our vehicle responsible if we drive 100 MPH and cause a deadly accident? NO. Is it the law's fault for allowing a person to drive, fully knowing that every person might possibly speed and cause an accident? NO, every driver is fully responsible to obey the traffic laws and drive safely.

God is love, and love does not force or constrain someone to love you. We call someone who tries to force someone to love themselves a rapist, or at least a very selfish and controlling person. Love absolutely demands freedom. God does not want slaves, he wants people who realize he loves them so much that he sent his Son to die for us, and that will love God in return of their own free choice.

This is the only possible way there can be love. By necessity the freedom that allows us to love God also must provide the possibility that we reject God and hate him. It cannot be avoided, even by God.

That doesn't make God responsible for our free will choices, just as Honda or Ford is not responsible if we drive one of their vehicles 110 MPH and cause a deadly accident on the highway.

 

[Greektim]

Allowing a person free will does not make God responsible for sin.

An analogy;

The law allows all of us of age to drive a motor vehicle. In order for a motor vehicle to safely cruise at 65-70 MPH it is necessary to make a car capable of going much faster than the posted limit, thus, most cars are built able to go at least 100 MPH or much more.

Does that make the manufacturer of our vehicle responsible if we drive 100 MPH and cause a deadly accident? NO. Is it the law's fault for allowing a person to drive, fully knowing that every person might possibly speed and cause an accident? NO, every driver is fully responsible to obey the traffic laws and drive safely.

God is love, and love does not force or constrain someone to love you. We call someone who tries to force someone to love themselves a rapist, or at least a very selfish and controlling person. Love absolutely demands freedom. God does not want slaves, he wants people who realize he loves them so much that he sent his Son to die for us, and that will love God in return of their own free choice.

This is the only possible way there can be love. By necessity the freedom that allows us to love God also must provide the possibility that we reject God and hate him. It cannot be avoided, even by God.

That doesn't make God responsible for our free will choices, just as Honda or Ford is not responsible if we drive one of their vehicles 110 MPH and cause a deadly accident on the highway.

My only problem with this is that w/ God's perfect knowledge and (according to your view) man's choice to love God or reject him is still predetermining. If you made a choice, and God's knowledge is perfect (free from error), and God knew before you were created what choice you would make, and God knew this before all of creation, and God cannot be wrong, and yet he decides to go for it anyways... well then God's knowledge becomes a predeterminative outcome. You could not make a different decision otherwise God would have been wrong. But since he can't be wrong, your decision was set/ordained.

This works for sin and rejection. If the capacity to choose is an act of love, and the result is that some reject, then God is still the one predetermining all of that since his foresight is perfect. God knew Adam would sin. He knew there would be rejection. Yet he goes on with creation anyways knowing that his knowledge is perfect and that the choice they make cannot change since what he knows must come to pass. Therefore, even that is a predetermined plan.

Foresight of events (nor the love means choice to accept or reject concept) does not fix the problem. It only brings you to the same conclusion... God ordained it.