Cause verses Allows

[steaver]

Whatever happens to me comes through the filter of God but that does not mean he caused it.

He did not make me an astrologer; He did not make me decide to do the bad things I did - I did all those on my own.

.

Job said God caused it upon him.

How do you know God did not make you an astrologer? Do you think you made it all on your own?

As far as the "bad things" you have done, there are three forces at work according to the scriptures. 1) Because of Adam you inherited a sin nature that has been "causing" you to sin since the day you were born. 2) Because of your own lust and selfishness you have chosen many times to sin, even when you had been given a choice by God. 3) God in His sovereignty can "cause" a person to sin for His purposes and His glory. Pharoah is one example of this in scripture. Judas is another. Several accounts of Kings are given. And Satan is an example of an angel being used by God to cause men to sin.

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

How can it be you say that Job never knew why?

Job says it was God bringing evil upon him. Is this Job not knowing and making a false analysis of the situation? The scripture says that what Job said to his wife and friends, which was recorded for us to read [ Job 1:22¶In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.] ,was no foolish charge against God, even though Job had said it was evil sent from God.

Job never knows about the Satan/God meeting, Steaver. At the end of Job, God just asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" etc. He never tells Job how it all transpired. That's the point - Job continues to believe God despite the circumstances.

What Job says is not necessarily what happened - it's what he thought was happening and yet he trusted God. This was not a sin because Job couldn't help not knowing.

What is the test Marcia? A test of faith? If so, what happens if Job fails? What would Job's failure to pass the test look like? Would it be cursing God? Is not cursing God a sin? Then isn't God tempting Job to sin if this is a test? If it is a test of faith then Job failing would be cursing God and not believing on Him any longer, no?

James says God does not tempt any man to sin. So the account of Job cannot be God testing Job to see if Job will sin (curse God, stop trusting in Him).

IT's a test of faith. I never said anything about God testing Job to see if he would sin.


I'm through with the Job topic, Steaver. If you want to start a thread on Job, please go ahead. You never proved your point that God leads men to sin, or at least that seemed the point you were trying to make.

How do you know God did not make you an astrologer? Do you think you made it all on your own?

God certainly did not make me an astrologer! Why would God make me something that he condemns?? That's like saying God makes people bank robbers, liars, adulterers, etc. Yes, I chose that through my sin nature; I rejected Christ and chose another path (including Eastern religions).

As far as the "bad things" you have done, there are three forces at work according to the scriptures. 1) Because of Adam you inherited a sin nature that has been "causing" you to sin since the day you were born. 2) Because of your own lust and selfishness you have chosen many times to sin, even when you had been given a choice by God.

I agree.

3) God in His sovereignty can "cause" a person to sin for His purposes and His glory. Pharoah is one example of this in scripture. Judas is another. Several accounts of Kings are given. And Satan is an example of an angel being used by God to cause men to sin.

I do not think God caused Pharaoh to sin. Pharaoh already had rejected God and God gave him over to his hardened heart. Have you ever done a study on this - on the phrase "God hardened his heart" and what it means? I am assuming that you must be a Calvinist who thinks God's sovereignty is undermined by saying people sin on their own. I have no problem with that; God is sovereign but he did not make robots. Our will is a reflection of being made in the image of God (I do not think we have unlimited will but I do think we can make certain choices). There have only been maybe 200 threads on this topic of free will, God's sovereignty, etc. I don't participate in them anymore. They are a waste of time.

Well, I'm on the road now in NC. I am speaking Sunday and then I have 4 radio shows so far next week and maybe will have a total of 7. So I may or may not return to this thread soon - I think I'm talked out on it and have made my points.

 

[steaver]

God certainly did not make me an astrologer! Why would God make me something that he condemns?? That's like saying God makes people bank robbers, liars, adulterers, etc. Yes, I chose that through my sin nature; I rejected Christ and chose another path (including Eastern religions).

.

oops! You said astrologer and my brain registered astrononmer. I have to take that one back :smilewinkgrin:

:thumbsup:

 

[steaver]

Job never knows about the Satan/God meeting, Steaver. At the end of Job, God just asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" etc. He never tells Job how it all transpired. That's the point - Job continues to believe God despite the circumstances.

What Job says is not necessarily what happened - it's what he thought was happening and yet he trusted God. This was not a sin because Job couldn't help not knowing.

.

I have to totally disagree with that analogy. This account of Job is to teach us about the sovereignty of God and Job's replies to his friends and wife are truths about God revealed to us.

You then are saying that when Job states...."What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?" ......he is speaking a falsehood. That he is answering his wife in ignorance.

"Job couldn't help not knowing". No way. Job answered foolishness with his wisdom of God, not out of ignorance.

IT's a test of faith. I never said anything about God testing Job to see if he would sin.

In part it could misconstrued as a test of faith as to strengthen Job's faith, God does do this to us all, however the scripture never says that this is the reason for the evil put on Job in this particular case. After reading the entire account with the Lord's response at the end it is pretty clear this is all about God's soverneignty in both good and evil being revealed. It isn't about Job, it is all about God.

I do not think God caused Pharaoh to sin. Pharaoh already had rejected God and God gave him over to his hardened heart. Have you ever done a study on this - on the phrase "God hardened his heart" and what it means?

Actually I have. God could have hardened my heart and your's for rejecting Him many times over. Praise Him for His grace and longsuffering!

When studying this subject you will be ultimately led to Romans 9...

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

But God is just because....

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

As you rightly pointed out, Pharaoh done alot of hardening of his own before God sealed his fate for destruction. As did Judas and all the others. Nevertheless, the fact remains that when God hardened Pharoah's heart Pharoah had no choice but to sin against God's command to leave the people go. That's just a hard fact. Pharoah's will to choose right was taken from him. As just as it was and after much longsuffering by God, God always just in His judgments, God caused Pharoah to sin. This does not make God anything less than love, perfect, holy, righteous and sinless, but rather it displays His sovereignty and His glory.

I am assuming that you must be a Calvinist who thinks God's sovereignty is undermined by saying people sin on their own. I have no problem with that; God is sovereign but he did not make robots. Our will is a reflection of being made in the image of God (I do not think we have unlimited will but I do think we can make certain choices). There have only been maybe 200 threads on this topic of free will, God's sovereignty, etc. I don't participate in them anymore. They are a waste of time.

Have I not already said people sin on their own by choice?

Don't view them as a waste of time Marcia. The subject of God's sovereignty is at the meat of God's Word. When we can grasp what sovereignty really means, in ALL things, we become more and more at awe of just how perfect and special our God is!

I have just begun studying this huge subject and have found it exciting as I let the word of God speak for what it says and don't try to rationalize tough statements in the word of God away.

You have blessed me by participating and engaging with me, thank you! Debate causes me to dig deeper and question all angles and consider all views people have on the subject that I may try and refine all that I believe and make the necessary adjustments to my theological pov as I believe God opens up the scriptures as I let some traditional views as well as some not so popular views be crutinized and hammered by questions to test their truthfulness.

I just desire the truth and wisdom of God Marcia. Thanks again for you time on this subject. I pray more people will get in and hammer this out so we all may get the fullest meaning God has meant us to have from these hard sayings found in the scriptures. I have found that we tend to do a bit too much dismissing under the contemporary teaching that God is Love and has nothing to do with the evil that goes on in this world. We christians need to embrace and teach the full counsel of God's word!

God Bless! Good debate sister! :thumbsup:

 

[Marcia]

I disagree that the the main lesson of Job is God's sovereignty, although I think Job shows that as well. The lesson in Job is faith - Job never lost his faith in the true God.

At that time, it was thought that if something bad happened to you, as it did to Job, it was because of sin. This is the view most of Job's friends took, and God reprimanded them for speaking foolishly.

The book shows us that no matter what happens, we are to trust God - that is the message. I've studied Job - and have gone through it verse by verse in a class once. So you and I disagree on this and the view that started in the other thread.

Just can't put into this what otherwise I might have although I think we were arguing in circles. October is a very high pressure month for my ministry.

Thanks for the discussion, Steaver and God bless.

 

[steaver]

Just can't put into this what otherwise I might have although I think we were arguing in circles. October is a very high pressure month for my ministry.

Thanks for the discussion, Steaver and God bless.

Thank you and may God bless your ministry abundantly!

I disagree that the the main lesson of Job is God's sovereignty, although I think Job shows that as well. The lesson in Job is faith - Job never lost his faith in the true God.

We can disagree in love and you have been a good clean debator, meaning you did not use any personal attacks when I frustrated you. :tongue3:

What I see to be the main lesson is Sovereignty and the side bar Job's perserverance in faith (at least in the beginning). I came to this conclusion because nowhere in the text does it say this was a test of Job's faith. In other OT accounts we see the text telling us when an act of God was a test of one's faith, like Abraham and Isaac.

And did Job really never lose his faith? Job wished he had never been born or even died at birth. I have a daughter who has said this to me many times because of the things that has happened to her. Is that a sign of great faith?? Job stood strong in the beginning but didn't he then waver and begin complaining?

At that time, it was thought that if something bad happened to you, as it did to Job, it was because of sin. This is the view most of Job's friends took, and God reprimanded them for speaking foolishly.

To quote the word of God, "there is nothing new under the sun". I see this all day long in Christian circles. Christians fearing a sin has caused them God's wrath or unprotection and Christians observing other Christians and saying "there are consequences for sin". This kind of thought is still alive and well today. Which is why God gave us the book of Job, to debunk this falsehood. Shall we not receive both good and evil at the hand of the Lord?

Maybe Job had the same attitude about sin verses wrath that his friends had and God wanted to teach Job also that this was wrong? Job feared sin did he not? Why did he fear it so much? Job even prayed for all his children just in case they sinned. Was this out of genuine love for God or was it out of fear?

God does not do things for nought. He had a reason for Job, maybe several reasons. There are many treasures to be found in the book of Job. It would take quite a bit of time to dissect it fully.

The book shows us that no matter what happens, we are to trust God - that is the message. I've studied Job - and have gone through it verse by verse in a class once. So you and I disagree on this and the view that started in the other thread.

I accept disagreement. My goal is to learn and understand that I may fully apply the scripture to my life in every way. We must be ever learning and always willing to have a doctrine scrutinized from every pov.

I don't want to teach error. Teaching is a very serious matter with God. None should take it lightly.

Jam 3:1My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

My approach to studying scripture has been developing into probing by questioning. Question, question, question. Why, why, why? Almost every verse is a teaching moment. Many times we read over passages to quickly and miss tons of information and insight into God.

:thumbsup:

 

[Tom Butler]

This thread is dealing with a subject that I admit I wish I understood better.

Here is a scripture verse dealing with the crucifixion that I think incorporates God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.

Jesus was delivered up by the determinate counsel of God. I see no other way to interpret this than that God decided that this would be done, and arranged all the circumstances to bring it about.

Jesus was also delivered up by the foreknowledge of God. Certainly, God knew what was going to happen. But how did he know? I think it is his determinate counsel. He knew because he determined.

Yet, Peter described those who killed Jesus as with wicked hands. Some of them may have been in his audience, since he referred to those he was talking about as "you." "You have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

Now, how do I resolve the dilemma? God determined, so it was going to happen. There is no way it was not going to happen. Yet those who did it are responsible.

I can't resolve it. But there is is.

 

[steaver]

This thread is dealing with a subject that I admit I wish I understood better.

Here is a scripture verse dealing with the crucifixion that I think incorporates God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.

Jesus was delivered up by the determinate counsel of God. I see no other way to interpret this than that God decided that this would be done, and arranged all the circumstances to bring it about.

Jesus was also delivered up by the foreknowledge of God. Certainly, God knew what was going to happen. But how did he know? I think it is his determinate counsel. He knew because he determined.

Yet, Peter described those who killed Jesus as with wicked hands. Some of them may have been in his audience, since he referred to those he was talking about as "you." "You have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

Now, how do I resolve the dilemma? God determined, so it was going to happen. There is no way it was not going to happen. Yet those who did it are responsible.

I can't resolve it. But there is is.

Might we be guilty of not seeing the forest because of the trees?

Is it not both?

We get so worked up that God cannot and will not and does not cause any man to sin. Afterall, God is pure love and if He were to be responsible for one's sin then He could not be pure! Why not? If we understand God is always just in His judgments then why can't God cause Pharaoh to sin and still be pure and holy?

We toss around the words "God is sovereign" and then we deny Him this right to cause sin and create evil in ways that fulfills His plans that He has established before He laid the foundation of the world and that glorifies His name throughout all the earth.

Why did God harden Pharoahs heart? We are told....

Exd 14:4And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I [am] the LORD. And they did so.

Rom 9:17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.



But we dismiss this fact and justify our dismissal by saying "God turned him over to his own hardening". However true this is, it does not dismiss the fact that God caused Pharaoh to sin by not allowing him to choose anymore.

This is explained in Romans 9 but we Christians today have been indoctrinated to believe that there is this great power struggle going on between God and satan. Is there a power struggle going on? Of course not, not between God and satan. God can crush satan anytime He wills. So what then? Satan is under God's rule and satan was created by God, for God's purposes. Any power struggle perceived is there because God places it there for His purposes.

So the scripture then says....

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Sinners, including the angels that sinned, are still held responsible and found guilty. Why?

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

These vessels were not born without a free-will choice. It is only after "much longsuffering" on God's part that they are fitted then to destruction. Thus they are guilty AND God causes them to stay guilty that His power and wrath might be known.

We say "that can't be, everyone has a choice and everyone can be saved if they will trust in Jesus". It can be and it is. God's word is clear...

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

What is it that causes us to reject these truths? Is it the lack of teaching found in todays churches concerning God's sovereinty? Oh we throw that term around a good bit but is the church teaching what that word really means and all the implications that it brings to events around the world and in each person's life?

We say "no, God cannot 'cause' sin, God 'allows' sin". Hardening a man's heart so that he cannot obey God's command is nothing less than causing the man to disobey and to disobey is sin....

Rom 9:14¶What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


We have no problem with accepting the fact that the scripture declares God is One and God is three persons and both statements are true.

Why can't we accept the scripture that displays God is sovereign over even sin and can cause sin after His righteous judgments, and for His righteous purposes, yet God is not guilty of sin nor stained at all with sin?

Did God sit down before He created the world and workshop this all out? Did He say "if I do this, then satan will do that, and Adam will do this, then I will have to do this, and so on and son on?"

Or, did God plan the fall of Adam so Jesus could be glorified? Think about all of this. Would Jesus be deeply honored and praised had He never a need to die for sin?

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

No sin, no mercy. How could God show his creation His eternal attribute of mercy without the condemnation of sin?

Do we really understand "sovereinty"?

"Cause verses Allows". Isn't both true?

:jesus:

 

[Tom Butler]

"Cause verses Allows". Isn't both true?

Yes, and my question regarding resolving God's sovereignty with man's responsibility actually assumed that there was a conflict that needed to be resolved.

It doesn't. God is sovereign and man is responsible. We'll understand it better by and by.

I wish I could remember who the old patriarch preacher was who was asked to explain the conflict between election and free will. "Well, son," he replied, "I didn't know they ever had a fallin' out."

 

[Eric B]

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

No sin, no mercy. How could God show his creation His eternal attribute of mercy without the condemnation of sin?

Do we really understand "sovereinty"?

"Cause verses Allows". Isn't both true?

So you seem to be saying is that God created sin in the first place, so he could condemn man and at the same time create a need for "mercy" in the first place, and this just to glorify Jesus?

That seems to make "mercy" just some sort of play, as God basically makes you guilty, and then has "mercy". Is that really mercy, or is that just a charade? How can you have "patience" on someone you caused to offend? That's not patience with the person; that's basically patience with your own action.

This takes the scriptures and reads a lot into them that is not spelled out there, and ultimately hides behind the "incomprehensibility" of God. In other words, the interpreter has a lot figured out, and can chide "objectors" to these "hard truths", but like the others, he will always run out of answers and confess "we can't know" at some point. But that means they really do not know as much as they think they do.
Suffice it to say, Romans 9 is not even teaching that God makes people sin so he can be "glorified" by them going to Hell, or whatever.

From http://www.erictb.info/predestination.html

Let's review the context by further examining the "why does He yet find fault; for who has resisted His will?" question. WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what? "Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and save them by 'enabling' them to repent, yet leave me/[others] in this helpless state, dead in sin, unable to repent, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state (before I[/they] were born, even) in the first place?". This is what people are asking Calvinists today, who then in turn simply project this into the text. But is it in the context of what the hypothetical person was asking Paul? It looks like it at first glance, and Calvinists assume so, so everytime someone questions or challenges "God holding helpless, 'totally unable' sinners responsible for their sin they couldn't repent of", the Calvinists just throw up the next verse as the quick magical answer. But "ability to repent" is not being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back another few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8) Paul argues that simply being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, because for one thing, Abraham had other children beside just the Jews. But God had declared that "In Isaac shall your Seed be called." (v.7) Being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because Esau also was his child. But God had still unconditionally chosen Jacob (v.12, 13), not because of any righteousness of his (Jews thought that their forefathers must have been chosen because of being more righteous, thus "works" rather than "Him that calleth"), for they were not even yet born when God made this decision.(v.11) So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage from Abraham. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough.
To further demonstrate God's choice of men for these purposes was not "unjust" (v.14) Paul goes into the whole story of Pharaoh. No Jew thought of what God did to Pharaoh as being "unjust" (after all, it was for their sake, and that's what mattered to them!) So then what Paul is getting to nobody also should think is unjust. The whole context is two groups "the Children of the flesh", and "the children of promise". It says nothing about the individuals in either group being unconditionally elected or preteritioned into those groups. It just assumes two groups, and emphasizes that what many thought was the class that mattered (Jew as opposed to Gentile) was actually not the right one.
Let's for once look more at the second part of v.20 (the beginning of Paul's answer to this question): "Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have you made me this way'?". Made them what way? Predestined to Hell? Sinners...legally charged with the choice of a 'federal head'? Helplessly unable to repent, yet "held responsible" to repent and left in that state? Passed over for "saving grace" and therefore doomed to suffer the eternal "justice" for their sins? Yet none of the above concepts are what was being discussed! (A reader would have no reason to even assume they were any of those things in the first place!).

The point there is not about "God causing sin, and still being right"; it's about an actual plan being revealed; which is quite easy to understand. (Salvation would be based on faith, and not physical inheritance; i.e. Israel, who trusted in inheritance).

I'm just curious why in this teaching, I notice the whole concept of God's glory seems to be tied to man's suffering. He torments saints here in this world, and torments preordained reprobates eternally after death. He seems to get more glory from temporal and eternal pain than from salvation, and Calvinism certainly focuses on the glory-through-wrath, even more than the so-called "mercy" it is supposedly purported to be "contrasted" with. The Gospel is supposed to be "Good News", but it is all bad news being emphasized as if it is the entire message itself and not simply an undesired reality that necessitated good news)!

Why do you think this is? Perhaps too much is being read into some of these scriptures? Especially if so much is out of reach of our knowledge anyway.
And according to the full teaching of the doctrine, God can actually be deceiving you, and cause you to fall away as a "reprobate" (you would actually be one of those "vessels of wrath", but He made you think you were 'elect' as part of His plan), and all for "His higher purposes". What could you possibly do then? What do we even hope in?

It seems people just followed this because it sounded tough, and was easily tied to some of Paul's scriptures (see 2 Pet. 3:15,16) that's what they think glorifies God the most; but did not really think it through.

 

[steaver]

So you seem to be saying is that God created sin in the first place, so he could condemn man and at the same time create a need for "mercy" in the first place, and this just to glorify Jesus?

That seems to make "mercy" just some sort of play, as God basically makes you guilty, and then has "mercy". Is that really mercy, or is that just a charade? How can you have "patience" on someone you caused to offend? That's not patience with the person; that's basically patience with your own action.

This takes the scriptures and reads a lot into them that is not spelled out there, and ultimately hides behind the "incomprehensibility" of God. In other words, the interpreter has a lot figured out, and can chide "objectors" to these "hard truths", but like the others, he will always run out of answers and confess "we can't know" at some point. But that means they really do not know as much as they think they do.
Suffice it to say, Romans 9 is not even teaching that God makes people sin so he can be "glorified" by them going to Hell, or whatever.

.

Very good questions :thumbs:

Let's go way back to before the earth was formed and it was only God, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Is it true that God is Eternal? According to the scriptures He is, no beginning and no end.

Is it true that God has not evolved at all? I mean has He changed in any way His character or His attributes as time marched on?

Is one of God's attributes "mercy"? Is this attribute eternal?

If yes, then how would God reveal this to His creation without any need for mercy?

So the question is, why did God create man? When the scripture says....

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

....was this an evolved thought of God's because of what man has done? An afterthought? I asked before, did God workshop this idea He had and write the story according to man's responses?

Or did God plan everything, including sin, so He could reveal His great love, mercy, power and wrath.....His Sovereignty!

What if Adam never sinned?

Think about that.

What if Adam never sinned and all of creation never sinned?

Man would be perfect just like God. And man would not see himself as any different than God. And man would not know the love of God and the mercy of God and the power of God and the Sovereignty of God high and above all things! God would have nothing more than a perfect puppet.

Think about it.

How does God reveal His love, mercy, glory and power any other way than to create a being that has to fail so that being can understand God's attributes and his desperate need for God's love?

Can you see a better way? Do you think it would have been great if Adam never sinned? Would you love God the way you do now?

:jesus:

 

[Eric B]

That's a lot of reasoning, but it does not follow.
God could create man loving Him and His love and knowing their difference from Him (being created, and therefore automatically less than perfect).

In your scenario, it begs the question of what "mercy" is in the first place. That He decided to create some people for Heaven instead of Hell. And that's basically what it's about, as the Fall and necessity of some being condemned to Hell was planned in advance just for the purpose of "sparing" some from this. (This is supralapsarianism, which some Calvinists will deny, but all forms of the doctrine always leads back to it). This removes it from the context of them deserving Hell and being spared from it, because again, sin was just God's doing as apart of His plan anyway. The result is that those preordained to salvation were never in any danger in the first place. Only, they (initially) didn't know this. God makes it look like it by placing them in Adam's race. Again; it is ultimately a charade.

God could certainly make beings who love Him and appreciate His attributes without setting up such a charade. And of course, it's true that we do not know everything about why God created things the way He did, so such speculation is not solving any purpose. So man was fallen, and needed genuine mercy from God. We do not know the connection between God's control and sin coming to exist any more than we know why He allowed any to be condemned. Trying to fill in the pieces with this doctrine just raises more problems. And again, Romans 9 is not attempting to explain this. It is explaining the role of Israel in salvation.

 

[steaver]

In your scenario, it begs the question of what "mercy" is in the first place. That He decided to create some people for Heaven instead of Hell. And that's basically what it's about, as the Fall and necessity of some being condemned to Hell was planned in advance just for the purpose of "sparing" some from this. (This is supralapsarianism, which some Calvinists will deny, but all forms of the doctrine always leads back to it). This removes it from the context of them deserving Hell and being spared from it, because again, sin was just God's doing as apart of His plan anyway. The result is that those preordained to salvation were never in any danger in the first place. Only, they (initially) didn't know this. God makes it look like it by placing them in Adam's race. Again; it is ultimately a charade.

.

Whatever this is you posted is nothing of what I proposed. I never said anything about God condemning some to hell and some to heaven WITHOUT any will of their own to choose life. I believe that is what is called Calvinism.

God could certainly make beings who love Him and appreciate His attributes without setting up such a charade. And of course, it's true that we do not know everything about why God created things the way He did, so such speculation is not solving any purpose. So man was fallen, and needed genuine mercy from God. We do not know the connection between God's control and sin coming to exist any more than we know why He allowed any to be condemned. Trying to fill in the pieces with this doctrine just raises more problems. And again, Romans 9 is not attempting to explain this. It is explaining the role of Israel in salvation.

Well, I can't argue with you about what I haven't proposed. My post have nothing to do with Calvin's misunderstandings concerning free will. My post are focused on God's sovereignty and His plan and pupose for creating man.

Why don't you answer the questions I proposed? Let your mind work a bit on it. If you don't want to engage with what I posted that's ok with me. I have said nothing about man not having free will to choose his fate. I totally believe in free will salvation.

My topic is on "Sovereignty" not "Calvinism".
:godisgood:

 

[steaver]

supralapsarianism......."the doctrine that the decree of election preceded human creation and the Fall "

You had me on this one. I had to look it up! :type:

Well, since God knows the beginning from the end and He cannot learn anything, then God would know those saved and therefore elect before the Fall. So I don't see why this doctrine would be so difficult to grasp.

:jesus:

 

[Marcia]

Let's go way back to before the earth was formed and it was only God, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Is it true that God is Eternal? According to the scriptures He is, no beginning and no end.

Is it true that God has not evolved at all? I mean has He changed in any way His character or His attributes as time marched on?

Is one of God's attributes "mercy"? Is this attribute eternal?

If yes, then how would God reveal this to His creation without any need for mercy?

So the question is, why did God create man? When the scripture says....

Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

....was this an evolved thought of God's because of what man has done? An afterthought? I asked before, did God workshop this idea He had and write the story according to man's responses?

Or did God plan everything, including sin, so He could reveal His great love, mercy, power and wrath.....His Sovereignty!

What if Adam never sinned?

Think about that.

What if Adam never sinned and all of creation never sinned?

Man would be perfect just like God. And man would not see himself as any different than God. And man would not know the love of God and the mercy of God and the power of God and the Sovereignty of God high and above all things! God would have nothing more than a perfect puppet.

Think about it.

How does God reveal His love, mercy, glory and power any other way than to create a being that has to fail so that being can understand God's attributes and his desperate need for God's love?

Can you see a better way? Do you think it would have been great if Adam never sinned? Would you love God the way you do now?

:jesus:

I would like to comment although you are asking Eric this.

I see your point here but I can never say it was good for Adam to sin. I can't say that just so that I can say we therefore see God's mercy this way. That to me is rationalization for sin.

I think God's mercy was manifested because of sin but we can't know what joy man would have had knowing God without sin. Adam walked in the garden with God - it must have been something we have no words for. He did not need to know sin in order to know and love God. Sin broke this wonderful relationship; God's mercy restores it but that does not mean it was a good thing that Adam sinned.

 

[steaver]

I see your point here but I can never say it was good for Adam to sin. I can't say that just so that I can say we therefore see God's mercy this way. That to me is rationalization for sin.

.

I am looking at God's purpose for planning a "bad thing". We can't say God did not plan on man sinning, in fact what i am saying is God counted on man sinning so that His attributes would be revealed to the fullest.

I think God's mercy was manifested because of sin but we can't know what joy man would have had knowing God without sin.

But we will still know and enjoy this in the regeneration and know even more joy than we could have known without experiencing sin and salvation.

Adam walked in the garden with God - it must have been something we have no words for. He did not need to know sin in order to know and love God. .

To a degree, but not to the fullest of degrees. Adam could not know God's mercy and grace without experiencing seperation and condemnation. Think also about what I said if man never sinned, wouldn't man think he was no less than God? Satan wanted to be as God and so did Adam. God had to teach them that they cannot ever be as God. That they must count on God for their own life.

Think of your own life experiences. We really cannot and do not appreciate, and many times even understand many things, unless we go through it first hand.

Sin broke this wonderful relationship; God's mercy restores it but that does not mean it was a good thing that Adam sinned.

I see sin as God's tool just as satan became God's tool. God, being the Author of all things, planned this all from the beginning. Think about this...God made a creation in Adam that must fail so He could show this creation that God cannot fail. Then God's character and attributes would be fully expressed and revealed to His creation. Which gives the creation a clear choice, a free will to discern and choose. The choice being do you want Me or not now that I showed you who I AM and there is nothing I left out?

This is the great quandary concerning sin. Joseph told his brothers "you meant it for evil (sin), but God meant it for good (it was still sin)". So it was evil that his brother's sinned against Joseph and against God's word, yet it was also a "good thing".

Doesn't these things beg you to ponder, make your mind come alive! It excites me to know that God is sovereign and righteous even in the evil that man does! God TOTALLY in control! It makes me reverence Him more and more as I dig into these mysteries, and yes, much will remain a mystery, at least in this life, but hasn't He given us a good bit of insight into these things and we are reluctant to look at them for some reason? Why? Why does these things make us so uncomfortable?

Does the bible teach us that sin is both a "bad thing" and a "good thing" but we ignore what it is saying? How about Joseph's words to his brothers? Do you see how God is at work even using sin? There is a song on the album "Ending is Beginning" by the group Downhere that says God "leverages even sin" (An excellent album btw, I highly recommend it). Sin is bad, it is evil, but God uses it. I would say He even "causes" it when He wants something fulfilled for a good. We don't like that word "cause". But "Cause verses Allow" what really is the difference?

God bless you sister :thumbs:

:jesus:

 

[Tom Butler]

supralapsarianism......."the doctrine that the decree of election preceded human creation and the Fall "

You had me on this one. I had to look it up! :type:

Well, since God knows the beginning from the end and He cannot learn anything, then God would know those saved and therefore elect before the Fall. So I don't see why this doctrine would be so difficult to grasp.

:jesus:

Or, as a friend of mine asked "Did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?"

 

[Eric B]

Whatever this is you posted is nothing of what I proposed. I never said anything about God condemning some to hell and some to heaven WITHOUT any will of their own to choose life. I believe that is what is called Calvinism.

Well, I can't argue with you about what I haven't proposed. My post have nothing to do with Calvin's misunderstandings concerning free will. My post are focused on God's sovereignty and His plan and pupose for creating man.

Why don't you answer the questions I proposed? Let your mind work a bit on it. If you don't want to engage with what I posted that's ok with me. I have said nothing about man not having free will to choose his fate. I totally believe in free will salvation.

My topic is on "Sovereignty" not "Calvinism".
:godisgood:

supralapsarianism......."the doctrine that the decree of election preceded human creation and the Fall "

You had me on this one. I had to look it up! :type:

Well, since God knows the beginning from the end and He cannot learn anything, then God would know those saved and therefore elect before the Fall. So I don't see why this doctrine would be so difficult to grasp.

:jesus:

OK, so you're not Calvinist. In fact, I did thought I remembered you in Calvinist debates on the free-will side but I wasn't sure. Figured if you were, then maybe you changed.

But you are using the same lines of reasoning as they do, and they will point out that your last statement here proves their side; that foresseing it is the same thing as preordaining it.

Marcia answered well, and nobody can answer the question of why God allowed sin, or foresaw it and created us anyway. Your view leads to a breakdown of any sense, as it has God as the author of sin, but automatically exhonorating Himself by His status as God. There is just something to it that we do not know, so we cannot put together a nice complete rationale like that.

 

[steaver]

But you are using the same lines of reasoning as they do, and they will point out that your last statement here proves their side; that foresseing it is the same thing as preordaining it.
.

Where I part ways with Calvin is where he took the biblically proven doctrine of free will and scrapped it. The scriptures show us both free will and God's election working together in God's unfolding plan. Both are true and each has it's place. One does not need to choose one over the other. God is at work in both.

Marcia answered well, and nobody can answer the question of why God allowed sin, or foresaw it and created us anyway. .

How do you know this? Maybe you just refuse to seek the answer. Have you thoroughly investigated if it can be known?

Your view leads to a breakdown of any sense, as it has God as the author of sin, but automatically exhonorating Himself by His status as God. There is just something to it that we do not know, so we cannot put together a nice complete rationale like that.

Why not?

Do you believe God created man with a free will to choose right and wrong? Wrong is "sin" correct? Then where did the ability to sin come from? From God correct?

You can't say it came from satan because satan had the free will choice as well. So the ability to sin was there even before satan was created.

So who then created sin if it is not an eternal thing?

If sin will be extinguished in the regeneration, never again to be part of God's creation, then isn't God removing something that He placed into existence to begin with. I guess we have to decide if sin was created, and by whom, or if it is eternal. Well, it cannot be eternal or it would not end in the regeneration. So when was it created and who created it?

:jesus:

 

[Eric B]

Sin is the falling short of God's standard (a negative), not some [positive] "thing" that He must have created along with everything else. It's really not a duality. There's God's will, and there's other than God's will. Once God ordained a will, there was automatically the possibility of something else.

It's not refusing to seek the answer. Because you too will reach a point where you will claim an answer can't be known. And that's when the reason God willed people to be lost is raised. Then, you, along with the Calvinists, pledge "his Higher purpose". What I'm saying is that the question is raised because you've already gone beyond what can be known, and tried to put together how you think sovereignty and free will fit together.