Do some doctrines steal from the Glory of God?

[The Biblicist]

I'm not denying any of these points for this argument. I am presuming Calvinism's claims are true...that Arminian teaching is 'sin' and 'fall short of God's glory' and that it 'steals God's glory.' In turn, I am contrasting that with the Calvinistic teaching regarding God unchangeably ordaining whatsoever comes to pass for his greatest glory.

Whether that glory is eternal or temporal matters little to the point of this argument or the apparent contradiction of these two Calvinistic claims, because clearly the greatest glory is the eternal glory which results from that which God has unchangeably ordained to come to pass.

Your rationale is irrational because we believe sin is by God's permission not by his pleasure in sin and what he permits He does within the broader guidelines of His ultimate glory, although that may not be apparent presently. Hence, no contradiction for us to claim that sin robs God of His glory in the temporal sense as the scriptures plainly state that (Rom. 3:23 "come short of the GLORY OF GOD") just as the scriptures plainly state that ulitmately all things permitted by God will glorify God as anything that would not work to that ulitmate end would be restrained by God (Psa. 76:10; Rom. 8:28).

You are simply inventing a straw man argument to burn.

 

[Iconoclast]

InTheLight

hello ITL...let's see what is on your mind:type:

And according to Calvinism this so-called confusion on Skandelon's part was ordained by God

.
ITL...can you name anything at all...that has come to pass, or that will come to pass...that is {not ordained of God} could you offer a biblical explanation of this how God is God, and yet...in your mind things happen outside of His control. be specific if you can.

Icon, it must be nice to be one of the elect

ITL.....are you saying that you are not one of God's elect?
The way you post this indicates you see being elect of God as a dirty word, or something you can speak with contempt about.
Are all , everyone, who believes by God given faith...ELECT..??
Again...answer and offer some bible please..like here;

1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ,

according to the faith of God's elect,

and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

I enjoy this teaching and am thankful everyday for it...are you?
Do you believe you are elect of God?

and completely in the know on all doctrinal issues.

If you can show where i make such a claim...post it. i do strive to know as much as i can know and have much to still learn.

Is it possible you are trying to undermine me personally as if to dismiss what i post because we are not in agreement? Be a big boy and offer where you think i am in error,and offer scripture to demonstrate if I offer something defective....i will read and consider it..I will surely do that.

Do you think it is just possible that you do not like the teaching itself..on an emotional level.So you think that by trying to portray me in such a way as you have done you think it will all just disappear? maybe think that over a bit more. ITL...offer whatever critique you want...i welcome it if it is meant to correct me.:thumbs:

Yep, throw it on the pile with the other contradictions.

ok..let's once again look at your list here...

God requires all to repent,

Yes he does....
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

but then will not enable all to do so.

ITL....where does it say God has to save all men.he has not purposed to do so.That he saves any is His business.He has chosen to save all he can jstly save according to His Holy purpose.I trust God is doing just as he has Covenanted to do...Do you believe so...or do you find fault with God..Rom9

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
you seem to indicate there is ITL
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

ITL..could you speak to these verses and explain your understanding to me, rather than try to diminish me..based on your speculation on my character.

Show me how these verses do not say what they clearly say on this matter as you find this idea .....not correct.

A person has free will but only if God enables it.

free will does not exist...so this starts on a wrong premise.

God is sovereign and in control of everything

,

The God of the bible declares himself to be...do you believe He is ITL, or do you think of a god who can only do what you approve of?

but the result of the Fall--the total inability to seek or come to God--was Adam's doing.

Did Adam do it? or did God send angels to tie him down and force feed him?
God gave Him his word and the certainty of what took place...Adam sinned.
God did not sin.
This whole let's blame God for Adams sin...comes 24/7 from those who turn from the biblically revealed truth.

The "whole world" does not really mean the whole world. "Whosoever" doesn't really mean anyone.

the context defines it to anyone who is honest about it.

I'm sure there are others.

there are no contradictions...but there are many other misunderstandings.:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

Skandelon writes:

Calvinists teach that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass for His greatest glory...

John Calvin wrote, "Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined....Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction."

John Piper echoes such teaching, "So when I say that everything that exists — including evil — is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly, I mean that, one way or the other, God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son.”
​

As evidenced on this forum and in other notable writings, Calvinists also teach that Arminian doctrine steals from the Glory of God, but isn't that a contradiction? Either God ordained Arminian doctrine (just as He does all things) for His greatest glory or the Arminian teachings steal from God's glory. It can't be both, can it?

How can one claim that God unchangeable ordained X for his greatest glory, while at the same time claiming that X lessens that glory?

Is this a Calvinistic contradiction?

Response:

The writers are correct that these things glorify God. The problem is that in arminian and anti-cal thought many attack these truths as if God receiving 'glory' is God getting His jollies.

It's not.

It is God's glory being manifest in justice, mercy, grace, judgment, or whatever manner it is that God is declaring His glory and magnifying His attributes. Consider Romans 1 for instance, as His wrath is revealed, meaning He is being 'glorified'. Note Exodus 32-33 for instance as well where both His justice and mercy are glorified before Moses, the world (today) and Israel. Consider also Jeremiah 24 where his mercy and justice are seen in His Sovereign usage on whom He wills to use either His mercy or His justice and wrath. There are many other examples.

This glorification of God doesn't have to be warm and fuzzy, as God is a God of wrath as well as love, a God of mercy as well as justice, thus He is 'glorified' in the manners used in the quotes in the OP. Therefore there is no 'contradiction' accept in your misunderstanding.

God's glory is revealed in many facets, and some think these things unfair or unjust as they don't like the true God of Scripture and attempt to dilute His attributes and glory with man's reason. This is evident here and on other forums and stems from anti-cal/arminian camps.

Now, you need others to shine light on how your system rob's God of His glory? You did that perfectly well when you proclaimed your personal achievement gospel in another thread, misusing Jeremiah 9:24 as proof.

:type: :type:

 

[InTheLight]

So, if my error is something God unchangeably ordained for the sake of his greatest eternal glory then you can only claim that our doctrine temporally steals God's glory, but ULTIMATELY is purposed for his greater eternal glory. Why are you fighting against that which is purposed for his greater eternal glory?

Bumpity-bump.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why are you fighting against that which is purposed for his greater eternal glory?

Rom. 7:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Your argument is based upon the very same premise of this objection against Paul claiming God can harden whom he wills and have mercy on whom he wills and raises up men like Pharoah to use how he wills so how can God condemn what He purposed to glorify him?

Your argument is based on the very same false premise. If God permits sin then how can he judge sin if it ultimately works to His own glory. If God raises up such to do his will than how can God condemn them for doing exactly what He willed. If God is glorified by sin then why should we or God oppose what glorifies God. Arminianism is the system of the objector to Paul.

 

[webdog]

I never thought permission of sin and its overruling by God was ever an issue with either Arminianism or Calvinism? So what is inconsistent about claiming God's sovereign purpose ultimately overules evil? Does that mean we are to glory in sin until it is overruled? Does Arminian teach that? We certainly don't. So what is your problem with Calvinism claiming that all sin will be ultimately overruled? What is insincere or dishonest about that????

You said arminianism is sin. Who created arminianism' in the determinist's model? Nobody is talking about permission.

 

[The Biblicist]

You said arminianism is sin. Who created arminianism' in the determinist's model? Nobody is talking about permission.

Look at what you are asking! You first admit that we consider Arminianism as what? ANSWER: "sin". Then you ask who created "arminianism" or "sin" in the determinist model? Thus you are asserting that sin must have been created rather than permitted.

However, in my system "sin" is by permissive decree only and eventually overruled (Psa. 76:10). In my system of interpretation God is not the author of sin, although he created the mechanism that necessarily gives permission for the entrance of sin - accountable free will in Adam (not outside of Adam).

So, where does your imagined inconsistency exist in my system????? The only way you can find any inconsistency is to falsely charge me with believing that God created sin. However, I have provided in another post a complete answer to this that Skandelon nor you can answer or at least have yet to answer and that is God IS life and thus life is not created by God. God necessarily cannot create another God and so all beings created by God are necessarily dependent upon God for life. Hence, death is not created by God but is merely the absence of life when created beings separate themselves from God by sin! Sin is merely the mechanism for separation from God as it is choosing against God's revealed will. Hence, sin is not created by God but is merely the absence of righteousness or in this case the choice for unrighteousness. God IS righteousness and therefore righteousness is not created by God and unrighteousness is merely the ABSENCE of righteousness by choice.

 

[webdog]

Look at what you are asking! You first admit that we consider Arminianism as what? ANSWER: "sin". Then you ask who created "arminianism" or "sin" in the determinist model? Thus you are asserting that sin must have been created rather than permitted.

However, in my system "sin" is by permissive decree only and eventually overruled (Psa. 76:10). In my system of interpretation God is not the author of sin, although he created the mechanism that necessarily gives permission for the entrance of sin - accountable free will in Adam (not outside of Adam).

So, where does your imagined inconsistency exist in my system????? The only way you can find any inconsistency is to falsely charge me with believing that God created sin. However, I have provided in another post a complete answer to this that Skandelon nor you can answer or at least have yet to answer and that is God IS life and thus life is not created by God. God necessarily cannot create another God and so all beings created by God are necessarily dependent upon God for life. Hence, death is not created by God but is merely the absence of life when created beings separate themselves from God by sin! Sin is merely the mechanism for separation from God as it is choosing against God's revealed will. Hence, sin is not created by God but is merely the absence of righteousness or in this case the choice for unrighteousness. God IS righteousness and therefore righteousness is not created by God and unrighteousness is merely the ABSENCE of righteousness by choice.

ITL...the entire post above can be put on your pile. There is no permission in a decree, pure contradiction.

God determines everything.
Arminianism' is sin.
God didn't determine that...He permitted it.

 

[The Biblicist]

ITL...the entire post above can be put on your pile. There is no permission in a decree, pure contradiction.

God determines everything.
Arminianism' is sin.
God didn't determine that...He permitted it.

So you believe God decreed sin since you allow no permissive decree for sin! I make a distinction between what God delights in versus what God hates but permits for ultimate good. The former is a positive decree while the latter is negative or decree to permit as God could have decreed no sin could enter his creation.

If you and your system want to make God the author of sin then that is entirely your choice to defend. I do not make God the author of Sin although I do make God the author of responsible free will which demands the permission for sin to enter into God's creation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 7:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Your argument is based upon the very same premise of this objection against Paul claiming God can harden whom he wills and have mercy on whom he wills and raises up men like Pharoah to use how he wills so how can God condemn what He purposed to glorify him?

Your argument is based on the very same false premise. If God permits sin then how can he judge sin if it ultimately works to His own glory. If God raises up such to do his will than how can God condemn them for doing exactly what He willed. If God is glorified by sin then why should we or God oppose what glorifies God. Arminianism is the system of the objector to Paul.

My response above describes the premise of Skadelon's whole argument and demonstrates the objector's to what Paul is teaching shared the same premises of Arminianism.

Now, if webdog and others want to depart from the OP and talk about the origin of sin on another thread, I will be more than happy to entertain them. However, discussing the decrees of God or the origin of sin is not within the boundaries of this OP.

 

[Skandelon]

Rom. 7:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Your argument is based upon the very same premise of this objection

So, the Israelites being temporarily hardened in their rebellion so as to accomplish redemption for the world is now being equated with the Calvinistic campaign against Arminianism?

 

[The Biblicist]

So, the Israelites being temporarily hardened in their rebellion so as to accomplish redemption for the world is now being equated with the Calvinistic campaign against Arminianism?

Regardless of what type of sin you choose to use, your premise is the same as the objector to Paul in Romans 9:15-20 and especially the objection voiced in Romans 9:19.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you affirm bare permission, or do you believe as some Calvinists that God is permitting that which He ultimately determines?

 

[Skandelon]

Regardless of what type of sin you choose to use, your premise is the same as the objector to Paul in Romans 9:15-20 and especially the objection voiced in Romans 9:19.

So your answer is not to deny the substance of the objection or even attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction, but instead to simply appeal to Paul's response under the presumption that it was originally intended to answer the same type of objection that I'm raising today, correct?

 

[The Biblicist]

So your answer is not to deny the substance of the objection or even attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction, but instead to simply appeal to Paul's response under the presumption that it was originally intended to answer the same type of objection that I'm raising today, correct?

Your question presumes that Paul's response is indequate to the very same premise existing behind your argument.

 

[Skandelon]

Your question presumes that Paul's response is indequate to the very same premise existing behind your argument.

My question was meant to merely be a restatement of your position. It presumed no inadequacies...stated or implied.

 

[The Biblicist]

My question was meant to merely be a restatement of your position. It presumed no inadequacies...stated or implied.

Neither does my response presume anything different than which Paul stated or implied.

 

[webdog]

So you believe God decreed sin since you allow no permissive decree for sin! I make a distinction between what God delights in versus what God hates but permits for ultimate good. The former is a positive decree while the latter is negative or decree to permit as God could have decreed no sin could enter his creation.

If you and your system want to make God the author of sin then that is entirely your choice to defend. I do not make God the author of Sin although I do make God the author of responsible free will which demands the permission for sin to enter into God's creation.

I believe no such thing, I'm not the determinist here. I adhere to Gods permissive will as defined...not as I redefine it.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe no such thing, I'm not the determinist here. I adhere to Gods permissive will as defined...not as I redefine it.

Then why attribute a view to me that I do not hold? I also adhere to God's permissive will in regard to evil. I also do not see any conflict between God's permissive will in regard to evil and God's will of purpose to work all things for the ultimate good of his people (Rom. 8:28) and His own glory (Psa. 76:10).

 

[Skandelon]

Neither does my response presume anything different than which Paul stated or implied.

I beg to differ. Paul was addressing a specific situation where by he was cutting off 'the elect' (Israel), while grafting in the Gentiles. In order to ensure God's purpose in electing Israel God reserved a remnant of Jews from the hardening process and they carried the gospel to the rest of the world. In short, some from the lump of clay (Israel) were cut off (hardened) and used for a common purpose and others for a noble purpose (apostleship), but still both groups served to fulfilled God's purpose in electing Israel...which was to bring redemption to the world...and both those used for noble purpose and common ones were still able to be grafted back in and saved.

The objection is one that a hardened Jew might bring to Paul for teaching this doctrine. It most certainly would be a clear abuse of scripture and a violation of every known rule regarding hermeneutics to apply Paul's answer to that objection to the one being discussed here.

To do so, you'd have to presume true the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 (which we obviously don't) and then you still would have to establish how an objection of a non-elect individual for being made non-elect somehow parallels the objection of how a false doctrine can both steal God's glory and be unchangeably ordained for His greatest glory at the same time. It is a fallacy of non sequitur, pure and simple.