Did God Create Evil and Sin for His Glory?

[Arminius]

What you posted is true, but not in this case. The world was given to Adam to rule, yet Satan is now its prince and "god". How did THAT happen? WHEN did that happen? Why not jut accept that Adam yielded it to the Devil when he fell, and the Devil actually walks in the dominion and authority tha Adam originally had?

This is further proven by the fact that Christ is called the Second Adam-1Cor 15. Wht does that mean??? It means Christ walked in the authority and power of the first Adam. But the key difference is he overcame the Devil, unlike Adam. And the Devil could never touch Him until he freely yielded his life over for the suffering of the Cross.

You have to understand where all this leads--to the truth. The Devil is the temporary "ruler"-Eph 6, walking in the authority granted to Adam. Adam's sin was high treason. And since these things are so, it is the Devil, sin and rebellious man who are doing as they wish--unrestrained. God is not "in control", for that implies an idea that is false--that he is behind all this satanic sinful garbage, and He is not.

Using Calvinistic cliches gives wrong ideas and impressions. Paul said to hold fast to the form of sound words. Our doctrine, and even our words must be carefully chosen.

That is why you find everything but sayings like "God is in control" in Scripture. Read the Psalms. When David or the people of God are in trouble, when the enemy comes, then God is who we turn to, in whom we trust, in whom we hide, our Rock, our helper, etc. Clearly He is not the one bringing the enemyor controlling them, he is there for those who cry out to Him and fear Him. He hears their prayers and delivers them. He is the Deliverer, not the controller. He delivers from the enemies of God and man.

And so, we need our minds renewed by the Word of God, not catchy cliches laced with blasphemous implications. Since God is not "Sovereign" nor "in control" the way Calvinists believe, I prefer not to use those terms at all, because they convey falsehood. Are we clear?

 

[BobRyan]

Dk:

If you are going to talk like you are some kind of theologian, sooner or later you have to demonstrate proof that it is so.

In Daniel 10, an angel appeared to him and said:

10:11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand
the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee
am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood
trembling.
10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that
thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself
before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy
words.
10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and
twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to
help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy
people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

The "prince" of Persia??? And he resisted this angel from bringing the answer to Daniel for TWENTY ONE DAYS??? And he had to get help from Michael to overcome this principality???

So there are demons over nations, and they can fight God's angels, apparently with great effect. How did they get into those placesof authority??? You need to think before you answer.

This is an example of what happens when one is not hampered by the misdirection of man-made-traditions and can simply read and accept a given text of scripture without having to filter and bend it for the sake of a prior man-made doctrinal spin.

When you SEE the text speaking for all it is worth - you are in a position to just accept it as Arminius has.

Praise God!

And you also don't seem to realize that if the offer Satan gave was not genuine, then neither was the temptation. Our Lord faced a genuine temptation, and he resisted it.

Here is a sobering thought - is Christ the victor over "fake temptations"? The author and example of how to win over candied temptations and caramel risks or is He the AUTHOR of salvation and true victor over the forces of darkness?

Preach it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Allowing man to choose causes God to be not Sovereign in that choice. God IS NOT "in control of everything" Like Arminius says in post #21.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=953443&postcount=28

john.

There it is distilled down to it's purest form -- Calvinism's made up premise for which there is not one single text in all of scripture.

In the Arminian context the fact that God allows free will CREATES the degree of indirection - the degree of freedom that is necessary to remove the RESPONSIBILITY of man's actions from His creator.

In Calvinism such FREEDOM - that provides for God NOT being the author of sin - is not ALLOWED!

NEVER does the bible say "I do not let you choose anything at all - for to do so would mean that I am no longer God - no longer the Sovereign God of all creation".

So Calvinism simply "makes it up"!!

How instructive to the objective, reading, thinking mind!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

At this point, I don't have anything to prove to you as you still haven't proved from Scripture that God is NOT sovereign. Prove to me from the Bible that God isn't sovereign.

It is the Calvinist argument That God must MAKE Satan SIN in order to be "sovereign".

It is the Calvinist argument that God must CHOOSE evil FOR satan -- SELECT his victims for him and CAUSE him to torment his victims - so that God CAN be sovereign.

By contrast it is the Arminian Argument that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE to create and sustain a FREE WILL system.

It is the Calvinist contention that God COULD NOT do such a thing and STILL be sovereign because THEY DEFINE sovereignty as "CONTROLLING everyone right down to the CHOICES that they make".

It is another classic example of "Calvinist redefinition" used as a ploy to try and game the argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[beloved57]

Well DK, it appears you suffer from an inability to understand English or you Do not read carefully. I never said the true God is a child abuser. I am arguing against that very thing! The “god” of Calvinism is! I quoted James One PROPERLY. I “added” nothing to it, I barely expounded it. Your accusation is from the pit. You are simply too emotional to reason, and so you are halluncinating, and wasting cyberspace writing a polemic against what I don’t believe and didn’t say! Half your post is an utter waste of time.

Apparenlty you didn’t read the threadstarter by Beloved where he said:




Now then, do you believe that Satanic vomit, yes or no? Why did you not read the whole thread before jumping in? Proverbs says he who answers a matter before he hears it exalts folly. Go look up that word. You are guilty.

Beloved ascribes sin DIRECTLY TO GOD. That is blasphemy of the highest sort, and the highest form of "doctrines of devils" to ever come down the pike. Deal with that, and either pay attention to exactly what people write, what they were responding to, or take an English comprehension course. Your post is utter folly.

And just to show you YOU DON'T even know what you are talking about when you do actually respond to what I did say, tell me what the implications are when Satan is called:

a prince.
a god
power
authority
a seat
and finally, when the Devil tempted our Lord, he said:

Luke 4:
4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto
him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the
glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I
will I give it.4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

So, when did the Devil get all this power and the kingdoms of the world? When was it "delivered unto" him??? And he too can "give" it away??? Explain!

Lets see some exegesis and not your pontifications please.

As far as Sovereignty, on another thread I said:



That is what the Bible teaches, not Calvin's demeted view of Sovereignty, as espoused by Beloved. The above is the teaching of Scripture, like it or lump it.

Arm, you talk a whole lot, and say absolutely nothing, worthless chatter, shut up please...:tonofbricks:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

All I know - being a Calvinist - is, that God did not create evil or sin, but, that He uses it to His own glory. Evil and sin do not rule over Him, but He rules and over-rules, it.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Arminius:

"when the Devil tempted our Lord, he said: Luke 4:4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed untohim all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

So, when did the Devil get all this power and the kingdoms of the world? When was it "delivered unto" him??? And he too can "give" it away??? Explain! Lets see some exegesis and not your pontifications please.
As far as Sovereignty, on another thread I said: That is what the Bible teaches, not Calvin's demeted view of Sovereignty, as espoused by Beloved. The above is the teaching of Scripture, like it or lump it."

GE:

No, 'The above' is Arminius' 'demeted view of Sovereignty, as espoused by' himself.

Have you not read, as in that same pasage you referred to, that "IT IS ALSO WRITTEN", that "the devil is a liar since the beginning"?
So both the devil then, and Arminius at this moment, are liars and give birth to lies.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"It is the Calvinist contention that God COULD NOT do such a thing and STILL be sovereign because THEY DEFINE sovereignty as "CONTROLLING everyone right down to the CHOICES that they make"."

GE:

No, dear Bob; you forget it's sin and evil so "controlling EVERYONE right down to the CHOICES that they make"." Now you come and you say, "It is the Calvinist contention"?

Wow. don't you know the first principles of honesty?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Post 68,

"It is the Calvinist contention"? I should have finished, "It is the Calvinist contention" Divine "sovereignty"? Half a word would be enough of course for filled skull.

 

[johnp.]

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Where is the choice in that Bob?

So Calvinism simply "makes it up"!!

That is simply not true. I see no scriptures to back up what you say.

By contrast it is the Arminian Argument that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE to create and sustain a FREE WILL system.

Arminius was caught in his lies not Calvin. You boast of a known liar and believe the words of a known liar? Cool.

john.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Where is the choice in that Bob?

#1. Is it your claim that Christ had "no choice"??

#2. Is it your claim that the Jews had "no choice but to have Christ given over to them to do with as they pleased"???

Is this supposed to "help" the Calvinist argument in some way?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=954072&postcount=52

Quote:
By contrast it is the Arminian Argument that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE to create and sustain a FREE WILL system.

JohnP
Arminius was caught in his lies not Calvin. You boast of a known liar and believe the words of a known liar? Cool.

#1. I already quoted you relying heavily on your own exact words here -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=954072&postcount=52

#2. I am not quoting ANYONE in the reference you just gave.

#3. The term used above was "Arminian" not "Arminius".

#4. Arminius has been shown to be Biblically correct time after time on this board when it comes to C/A points. I DID quote him several times (but not in the example you gave) where he was right on target. IF you have an objection to one of them - go ahead and show it instead of merely claiming you did something with one of the quotes I gave of Arminius - where in fact you have not.

Just a thought -

In Christ,

Bob

 

[johnp.]

Hello Bob.

#1. Is it your claim that Christ had "no choice"??

It isn't. And I see no reason why you think I would claim such a thing.

#2. Is it your claim that the Jews had "no choice but to have Christ given over to them to do with as they pleased"???

they pleased"??? As God pleased. Is it your claim that Christ had "no choice"?

Is this supposed to "help" the Calvinist argument in some way?

I don't know, I don't try to help the Calvinist cause do I?

JohnP
Quote:
The Lord has mercy on who He wants and to Hell with the rest for His glory and our deeper reverence.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1586/19.html#000275

Your links do not work. and our deeper reverence. does not sound like my stuff. Did I really say and our deeper reverence.? Show me.
The Arminian God will not win any design awards for His creation and neither will you. Your link leads to a garbled mess.

By contrast it is the Arminian Argument that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE to create and sustain a FREE WILL system.

In His Sovereignty He could have chosen to create a free will system I suppose but the moment another chooses a thing God is no longer Sovereign is He? The one making the choice is sovereign. That is a very simple thing to understand. If a man is sovereign God isn't and you claim He isn't because you say He gave His Sovereignty away. You have decribed God as having as much sovereignty as our queen Elizabeth. That crowd did not give their sovereignty away though, we took it from them.

#1. I already quoted you relying heavily on your own exact words here -

I do not rely on my words but I do take responsibility for them. But then the entire sentence is odd.

#2. I am not quoting ANYONE in the reference you just gave.

I was just mentioning the lying character of the one you claim is the font of all truth. #4. Arminius has been shown to be Biblically correct time after time... See what I mean?

...go ahead and show it instead of merely claiming you did something with one of the quotes I gave of Arminius ...

I'm sure I have nothing better to do and if I haven't answered any point it was because I didn't think any reply was called for. You will have to point out what you want me to reply to in a manner I can understand.

john.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But Calvinists would have us believe that the glorious Saviour is a sadistic child abuser who made billions of souls simply to damn them so he could show us how great he is.

Can you cite for us some Calvinists who believes this or would have us to believe it?

If not, then you need to apologize for your dishonesty and retract your accusation.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Larry, we're used to it.

 

[Arminius]

The Opening Tread says such things Larry. It is blasphemy, but at least Beloved is a consistent Calvinist and does not try to escapte the logical conclusions of the TULIP system.

 

[DHK]

The Opening Tread says such things Larry. It is blasphemy, but at least Beloved is a consistent Calvinist and does not try to escapte the logical conclusions of the TULIP system.

Your "logical" conclusions are not so logical. If you cannot cite a source or quote a Calvinist who believes then withdraw the statement, apologize for saying it, and refrain from such inflammatory language in the future.
You would be wise to re-read the posting rules by which you agreed to abide by when you first registered here and pushed that button that said "I agree." You have constantly broken them, which calls most everything you say into question.

 

[tragic_pizza]

"God preordains everything and yet without violence to the will of the creature." John Calvin

 

[Arminius]

Excuse me DK, your pal Beloved posted exactly what I objected to and we have went over this already. Why do you act as if you don't know it? When you challenged me for this info I posted Beloved's exact words, and you conveniently didn't address that and kind of stopped your debate with me. Interesting.

But you have Beloved here saying all Arminians are not Christians, we are not following the gospel or the Jesus of the Bible! What in the world is THAT??? Let me help you--lying lunacy, but not untypical sentiments from the Calvinistic camp, as can be documented from many of its apologists past and present.

As for your qoute from Calvin, it didn't matter to him that he contradicted himself all over the place, and his qualifications do not save his ideas. He said there is only one will in the Universe--God's, therefore man has no will, but rather, performs the will of God knowingly or unknowingly. Read the Institutes through carefully, and you will see.

 

[DHK]

Excuse me DK, your pal Beloved posted exactly what I objected to and we have went over this already. Why do you act as if you don't know it? When you challenged me for this info I posted Beloved's exact words, and you conveniently didn't address that and kind of stopped your debate with me. Interesting.

You have been challenged more than once and by more than one poster to back up your words with a source. Thus far you haven't done that.

But you have Beloved here saying all Arminians are not Christians,

That is a true statemet.
Not all Arminians are Christians. Not all Calvinists are Christians. Not all Baptists are Christians, and certainly not all Pentecostals are Christians. So what!

we are not following the gospel or the Jesus of the Bible! What in the world is THAT??? Let me help you--lying lunacy,

It is precisely this kind of rhetoric that will earn you a one-way ticket off this board. As I advised go and re-read the rules, especially the ones about posting in grace.

but not untypical sentiments from the Calvinistic camp, as can be documented from many of its apologists past and present.

There are many Godly calvinists. Just because you disagree with the theology gives you no right to call them names. If you can't learn to post decently and without demeaning remarks then go somewhere else. We don't need your vitriol here.

As for your qoute from Calvin,

I never quoted Calvin. I am not a Calvinist.

it didn't matter to him that he contradicted himself all over the place, and his qualifications do not save his ideas.

It doesn't matter a great deal to me what he beleives, neither does it matter to me what Arminius believes. My beliefs are based on the Scriptures.

He said there is only one will in the Universe--God's, therefore man has no will, but rather, performs the will of God knowingly or unknowingly. Read the Institutes through carefully, and you will see.

I don't plan on reading the Institutes any day soon. I have no reason to. I read and study the Bible. Maybe you should too. It says: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth..."