• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

For God so loved the world

King James Bond

New Member
Jarthur001,

I understand what you are saying.

Let me be quite honest with you and let you know that this is something I still study on and struggle with understanding.

I am so far convinced that God has ordained sin to exist in His creation.

Sin exists because God had predetermined to create weak creatures in which sin would exist.

For what man has not sinned? Do people really have free-will or are their natures bound to sin?

You seem to me as quite a mature person in regards to understanding lots of things.

Here is one of the articles I was reading.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/suffering/god_and_evil.html

If you ever get a chance to read it would you give me your input on it?

Thanks and regards, KJB
wavey.gif
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Hi ya KJB..

below is some of the text from the link.. and my thoughts

***********
Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be?

Jonathan Edwards on the Decrees of God
The Jonathan Edwards Institute
Evangelicals Seeking the Glory of God
July, 1998

Charles Colson wrote, "The western church - much of it drifting, enculturated, and infected with cheap grace - desperately needs to hear Edwards' challenge. . . .
****** Amen to this
********************

The disappearance of Edwards's perspective in American Christian history has been a tragedy.
****** Again..Amen
**********************


For them, now God is sovereign, and now he is not. Now he is in control, and now he is not. Now he is good and reliable when things are going well, and when they go bad, well, maybe he's not. Now he's the supreme authority of the universe, and now he is in the dock with human prosecutors peppering him with demands that he give an account of himself.
******** Good wording..and very true
*****************************

But when a person settles it Biblically, intellectually and emotionally, that God has ultimate control of all things, including evil, and that this is gracious and precious beyond words, then a marvelous stability and depth come into that person's life and they develop a "God-entranced world view."
********* Evil. At this point we need to ask what is this evil? Evil as we have talked about on this tread is sin. Evil can also be used in place of the word “bad”. Bad is not always sin. This is not wrong to replace the word sin for bad, but bad is a much broader meaning then just sin, so in the case evil must be look at in the same broader meaning.

A bad or evil rainstorm is not sin..But could be used by God as a punishment for sin. With this bad storm death can come which is also bad. Life has “bad” moments. Life is unfair at times. Why does bad things happen to Good people? In this regard God is in full control and can indeed cause the bad for many reason. One is for punishment as I have stated above.

Also God MAKES BAD things come into our life, not to sin, but it is for making us stronger and to grow.

I post verses from romans, john and Hebrews more than any other books in the Bible on this forum. However, my favorite book in the bible is Ecclesiastes. If I could be blessed with only one willful event as a gift to the world, it would be this. To give each man, lady, teen and child a copy of Ecclesiastes and have placed in them the meaning of it fully. There would be no more need for “head doctors”. Most all pride would be gone. Lust would be out of here. Where would sin be without these 2 things?

Ecclesiastes is a very depressing book that takes every dream you have and crushes it. It makes you feel worthless and wounding what life is really about. There is no gospel message in Ecclesiastes. Many preachers try to push the gospel into the story. I think they are missing the point of the book.

Ecclesiastes shows us life, “under the sun”. Here on earth we have “wanting” and "longing" and end in death. The writer of Ecclesiastes even ask this..” would it not be better to not be dead”? This comes from what the Bible calls the smartest man to ever live.

Ecclesiastes records this mans lust and pride and even records that he finds both of these things in all areas he looks. Yet..it changes NOTHING. Life is still worthless

Bad things still happen.
Death still will come to the good person
Being wise only means fools will get the fruits of your wisdom.
Nothing changes……

The key to understanding Ecclesiastes is found in chapter 7


Ecclesiastes 7

1 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death, than the day of birth.
*****death is better than birth? how can that be? Looking at death gives us reason to live


2 It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting; for this is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to heart.

3 Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of countenance the heart is made glad. 4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. 5 It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools.
*********************** this is the reason why I bring Ecclesiastes up in this reply. Bad things WILL make is better…and is placed in our life for this reason. I said there is no gospel message in the book. Well..there is not, but you can read between the lines and find it. “the heart of the wise is in the house of morning”. When we go though tough times we should always learn. Look back in you life and see where you grow the most. I would say it was when you had a rough time. Good times bring very little growth. Do we like going though those rough times? No..but would you change any thing? I mean...maybe is this was a love one you would like to have them back. But what i'm asking..the pain you went though..even if it was rough and killed you soul and made you cry each day and night. on the other side..what God tought you...would you change anything other then having your love one back? That pain brought better understanding. You now see life better than before. The pain was GOOD for you...but it was hard to live though.

What is the greatest sorrow? I would say death. In reading between the lines we can then say…when you look at death..and know that someday death will come our way..this is when we should be wise..and get ready to die. This is when we can begin to REALLY live..after looking at death.


So..this is a long way to answer this, but bad things happen to good people..and its for their own good.


Now..also we must address this. In the fall sin brought death. Death to mans body. Death to all creation. Entropy…is that what it is called? I forget the word. This should be viewed as Gods punishment for sin.


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

1. Evidence of God's Control

First, then, consider the evidence that God controls all things, including evil. When I speak of evil, I have two kinds in mind, natural and moral. Natural evil we usually refer to as calamities: hurricanes, floods, disease, all the natural ways that death and misery strike without human cause. Moral evil we usually refer to as sin: murder, lying, adultery, stealing, all the ways that people fail to love each other. So what we are considering here is that God rules the world in such a way that all calamities and all sin remain in his ultimate control and therefore within his ultimate design and purpose.
*************I would agree with this. This is not saying sin is forced by God. Nor is it saying God made Sin. It is saying God allows sin to be. Within Gods control paths of sin away from God are there.
*******************************************


1.1 Evidence that God Controls Calamity
Life and death

Disease

Natural disasters

Destructive animals

All other kinds of calamities
********* I will not address this..for I agree. I just wish I had read this before typing my lines..It could have saved time. lol
*****************************************


1.2 God's Control over Moral Evil


For example, all the choices of Joseph's brothers in getting rid of him and selling him into slavery are seen as sin and yet also as the outworking of God's good purpose. In Genesis 50:20, Joseph says to his brothers when they fear his vengeance, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." Gregory Boyd and others, who do not believe that God has a purpose in the evil choices of people (especially since he does not know what those choices are going to be before they make them), try to say that God can use the choices that people make for his own purposes after they make them and he then knows what they are.
************
I agree that God used sin to bring glory to Him. However this is not the same as saying God made Joseph's brothers sin.

James 1
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; 14 but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

However there are many ways that show God using sins of the sinner in His own will. In this light I think God used the sins of Hitler to bring home the Jews to its nation. yet Hitler was not forced to sin.
***********************************


The death of Jesus offers another example of how God's sovereign will ordains that a sinful act come to pass.
********* again in this story..God used the sins of man to bring glory to Him, but did not make them sin. God KNEW they would, but this is not the same as making.

If you KNEW me very well…and you had tickets to 2 football games and one ticket was to see WVU play and the other ticket was to see Ohio St play…and you asked me to take my pick…if you KNEW me..you would know I would pick WVU over some buckeye game.

My nature is to love WVU…and you know that before the tickets are there. But I still have that choice to take Ohio St. Man is like this in sin nature. He has the free choice as an offer but it is not in his nature to pick the right choice.

You could go beyond this and use this for your own good. If you had a package that needed dropped off in the town the game is played..and you also had these tickets and could not go…you could think of me..LOVING WVU….and KNOW I would go…so your package would get there…because of my choice. Still the choice is my choice and you did not force me to take the tickets

God did not send Christ so others would sin. He sent Christ as a king of the Jews and the Jews did not want him, and put Him to death. Did God know this would happen? Yes. God knows of mans sin nature. But the choice of Christ as King of the Jews was real. Now God went on and used the sins to pay for the sins of all mankind in the death of Christ. Did God know Christ would die? Yes. Was this not part of God plan? Yes. But still the Jews had a real offer to them as a KING....the their sin nature would not let them pick God.
************************************************


Edwards answers, "If by 'the author of sin,' be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin."
******** I agree
********************************


But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."
****** I agree
**********************************

God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."
******I agree
****************************************


Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,
*******WOOOOOOO now. I disagree. This is a big jump. God does not will it…but knows it..and uses it to his glory
*******************************************


God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.
********** no way. I just do not see this at all. God knows about sin and knows sin will happen. And can use it to His glory. This is not the same as making sin as a plan of his will.
****************************************************


This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 - "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellionand insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).
*********** I do not know all of these verse…but the ones I do know are stating facts of man WILL sin..not that he forces them to sin. The will of man is the path away from God that is sin
*****************************************


I'll look at the rest later. This is my 1st thoughts. I got to get some work done.


In Christ..James
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
God is Holy and Hates sin.
God is the Judge of all mankind
This is true in the case of the saved and the lost. Still - God "loves ALL" impartially.

God is in control of ALL
God has the POWER to do as He wishes
God has the POWER to know..
This is true whether you are the saved or the lost and was ALSO true before Lucifer fell.

And God "loves ALL" impartially.

James said --

God knows our need before we do
Yes - all knowing - no matter if you are the saved or the lost.

And God Loves "all" impartially.

James said
Do not get me wrong Bob. It is Gods love that i hold to. It is Gods love i preach. If God had not loved the world, we would not have Christ. Without Christ no atonement for sins. I feel that if we only focus on Gods Love we do not see all of God.
Agreed. "God is JUST AND the JUSTIFIER" Romans 3.

And yet "God loves ALL impartially".

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Jarthur001:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Jarthor I would like you tol show me where others have said God picks those by the good in us.
You mean other than Bob? </font>[/QUOTE]I have argued the case in Romans 2 that INSIDE the context of God's goodness that calls ALL MEN everywhere to repent --

God ALSO judges impartially (As the text says) and the RESULT of that impartial judgment (according to the text) is that some go to heaven and some to hell.

These are the details IN the text of Romans 2. As much as I would "like" to claim to have authored that chapter (as you seem to imply) -- I did not.

As Daniel confirms regarding that objective Gospel-centric future judgment "Judgment was passed in favor of the saints"

Again - if someone claims "me" as the author of the texts of scripture that don't fit Calvinism -they are not really doing anything FOR the argument in favor of Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jarthur001:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Jarthor I would like you tol show me where others have said God picks those by the good in us.
You mean other than Bob? </font>[/QUOTE]I have argued the case in Romans 2 that INSIDE the context of God's goodness that calls ALL MEN everywhere to repent --

God ALSO judges impartially (As the text says) and the RESULT of that impartial judgment (according to the text) is that some go to heaven and some to hell.

These are the details IN the text of Romans 2. As much as I would "like" to claim to have authored that chapter (as you seem to imply) -- I did not.

As Daniel confirms regarding that objective Gospel-centric future judgment "Judgment was passed in favor of the saints"

Again - if someone claims "me" as the author of the texts of scripture that don't fit Calvinism -they are not really doing anything FOR the argument in favor of Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob
</font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

I'm sorry if you feel I was saying you wrote the bible, or maybe even a mock of such things. Not sure my words that made you think this, but i did not mean to imply this. The reason for that one post you quoted was me asking tim if he wanted other names beside your name. This post in its own was not meant to even pick at your faith in this doctrine.


Sorry for the misunderstanding


In Christ..James
 

King James Bond

New Member
Jarthur001,

Thanks for taking the time to read through that article.....there are quite a few good ones on that site! Also thanks for responding.

James 1
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; 14 but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

That is a great point and great Scripture verse. I will have to agree with you because it is found in Scripture.

However, even though I am quite certain men are tempted by their own desires, God is able, and does put desires in mens hearts.

God can put desires in the hearts of men, and Satan can be summoned by God to put desires in the hearts of men…....and then they would now be the mans desires, and God would not tempt anyone.

God may lower His protection over a mans heart. This would not be mere permission but also by decree. Satan might fill a mans heart with other desires.

Thus those desires would now belong to the man.

I don't see God as only with vision to see what happens in the future. I see God as being the One to bring all things to pass by His will.
Even sinful acts.

You posted;

The death of Jesus offers another example of how God's sovereign will ordains that a sinful act come to pass.
********* again in this story.. God used the sins of man to bring glory to Him, but did not make them sin. God KNEW they would, but this is not the same as making.

Well Scripture says;

"That is what has happened here in this city! For Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate the governor, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all united against Jesus, your holy servant, whom you anointed. In fact, everything they did occurred according to your eternal will and plan." Acts 4:27-28

Everything they did? Who did? All the evil men! They did everything according to His eternal will and plan .

It was planned from eternity past and God brought it about by His will. It was not by the wills of evil men although of course they had wills.

Someone could have put desires in their hearts and would they refuse? No way! They are already sinful creatures. If they had desires put into their hearts those desires would now belong to them.

Again in Scripture;

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 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."

God not only "foreknew" it was His set purpose as well.

It was predestined. It was by divine direction. Jesus came down to earth to save us. The scenario was set before time. The date and time and place were set specifically. It could not have occurred at any other time than those specific hours, nor any where else, nor to any other nation or people, nor by any other men.

Anyways, I dont want to ramble on and on.

Look up the time that God sent a tormenting spirit to Saul.

Yes God sent it. Could Saul have refused it? I really do not think so!

God bless you Jarthur! Thanks for the great dialogue!

Regards, KJB
thumbs.gif
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Hey KJB,

Piper is a very good man. I have 2 of his books and I have read many of his postings on that site before you gave the link to me. It has been a good enter-change of thoughts. Thanks

I need to hold to my position. I do feel that my position as stated fits better with the over all message of the Bible. My main point ….what is Sin. This more than the verse in James is my strong hold. Yet it does not place God in a box. I will show you later why

The verses in acts 2 fit well within my doctrine. You may read them somewhat different than I. But I think this is showing God working work the willfulness of mans sin to bring about Gods plan and shows no where that God made man sin. You may see other things that prove this to you.

I focus on the action…” given up” as the determinate thing of God and the hands of man were the evil. The passage follows…
***********
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazaraean, a man borne witness to by God to you by works of power and wonders and signs, which God wrought by him in your midst, as yourselves know 23 -- him, given up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye, by [the] hand of lawless [men], have crucified and slain. 24 Whom God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death, inasmuch as it was not possible that he should be held by its power


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


23This Jesus, when delivered up according to the definite and fixed purpose and settled plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and put out of the way [killing Him] by the hands of lawless and wicked men.
***********************
KJB let me say I agree that Christ death was end of the plan. It was foreknown and really was the full picture of Christ coming. Yet he also came as King of the Jews. This coming was real too. God foreknow the jews would say no and USED the sins of not just the jews but all mankind for His plan. Christ death was predestined using Mans sinful heart. Jesus death was planned using the sins of men. This is not the same as forcing men to sin.

I agree with what you wrote..

"It was predestined. It was by divine direction. Jesus came down to earth to save us. The scenario was set before time. The date and time and place were set specifically. It could not have occurred at any other time than those specific hours, nor any where else, nor to any other nation or people, nor by any other men"

Now the one in acts 4 is much harder to work with. I could sit here and give a good long spin on it to wiggle my way out. Without building a strong case, I would read it that the END of the events was predestined and God used the sins of man to help make sure this came about. Hey..that is a spin..i know it. But that is about the best I can do with this verse. I do not change my mind with this verse for many others seem to support my doctrine.

Maybe the best thing I can do is say…”I DON”T KNOW”. This verse only shows me I do not have all the answers. Again..it does not change my stand.


28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy counsel did determine before to come to pass.

28 to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council foreordained to come to pass.
**************

Now back to “what does sin mean ?”. The best part of this is…God is in control and can do as he wishes. If at anytime he wanted to “SIN”….that sin would not be a sin. Sin is a transgression into God and with Him doing it, this would not transgress against His will for then it IS His will.

So..going back to acts 4. If God wanted to force some men to do things that we look at as “SIN”, it would not be a sin for God to do this for then it would be in His will. This does not place God in a box where I limit Him

I still do not think He would, but he is God and can if He chooses.


In Christ...james
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
KJB, James, it is much easier to hold to the doctrine that man is totally responsible for sin by free will, and is supported biblically in our choices made. One side says God is the author of sin which I believe to be heresy, the other says God sovereignly uses sin for His glory. I believe IN SPITE OF SIN, God uses man and sin for His glory.
 

whatever

New Member
Originally posted by webdog:
KJB, James, it is much easier to hold to the doctrine that man is totally responsible for sin by free will, and is supported biblically in our choices made. One side says God is the author of sin which I believe to be heresy, the other says God sovereignly uses sin for His glory. I believe IN SPITE OF SIN, God uses man and sin for His glory.
The Calvinists that I know believe that man is totally responsible for sin by free will and that God uses man and sin for His glory. They do not believe that God is the author of sin. Since you are not Calvinist are you saying that you do believe that God is the author of sin?
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
KJB, James, it is much easier to hold to the doctrine that man is totally responsible for sin by free will, and is supported biblically in our choices made. One side says God is the author of sin which I believe to be heresy, the other says God sovereignly uses sin for His glory. I believe IN SPITE OF SIN, God uses man and sin for His glory.
The Calvinists that I know believe that man is totally responsible for sin by free will and that God uses man and sin for His glory. They do not believe that God is the author of sin. Since you are not Calvinist are you saying that you do believe that God is the author of sin? </font>[/QUOTE]No. Read the above dialogue between KJB and Jarthur.
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Originally posted by webdog:
KJB, James, it is much easier to hold to the doctrine that man is totally responsible for sin by free will, and is supported biblically in our choices made. One side says God is the author of sin which I believe to be heresy, the other says God sovereignly uses sin for His glory. I believe IN SPITE OF SIN, God uses man and sin for His glory.
This is pretty much what I'm saying webdog just as you stated above. This would be called the middle ground of sin doctrine.

Arminian views range from a ...as i call it..."ying yang" thing...meaning God didn't make sin but it was around forever....to the area you just stated above webdog.

Calvinist start from this point and go the other way to where God is the author of sin.

You have shown that both sides can believe this middle ground. I know I do as a calvinist and you do coming from a Arminian slant.

I feel it is the right doctrine for sin can indeed bring glory to God. The book of James 1 says you can not blame God for sins...it comes from a sinful heart. If you re-word James 1 to say God places the desire in ones heart, then one could still blame God.


In Christ..james
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Jarthur001:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
KJB, James, it is much easier to hold to the doctrine that man is totally responsible for sin by free will, and is supported biblically in our choices made. One side says God is the author of sin which I believe to be heresy, the other says God sovereignly uses sin for His glory. I believe IN SPITE OF SIN, God uses man and sin for His glory.
This is pretty much what I'm saying webdog just as you stated above. This would be called the middle ground of sin doctrine.

Arminian views range from a ...as i call it..."ying yang" thing...meaning God didn't make sin but it was around forever....to the area you just stated above webdog.

Calvinist start from this point and go the other way to where God is the author of sin.

You have shown that both sides can believe this middle ground. I know I do as a calvinist and you do coming from a Arminian slant.

I feel it is the right doctrine for sin can indeed bring glory to God. The book of James 1 says you can not blame God for sins...it comes from a sinful heart. If you re-word James 1 to say God places the desire in ones heart, then one could still blame God.


In Christ..james
</font>[/QUOTE]
thumbs.gif
Amen! You make a good point about discernment. Regardless of what background you come from, to defend it at all costs, even if it contradicts God's Word is wrong. We should all study with open hearts and minds asking the Holy Spirit to discern, not the teachings from either Arminius or Calvin.
 

whatever

New Member
Originally posted by webdog:
No. Read the above dialogue between KJB and Jarthur.
Sorry, don't have time. I just wanted to point out that most Calvinists (in my experience) would agree with you that God is not the author of sin.
 

King James Bond

New Member
webdog,

It may be easier to hold on to many things...even lies. I would hope that our minds are conformed to Scripture rather that the other way around.

KJB, James, it is much easier to hold to the doctrine that man is totally responsible for sin by free will, and is supported biblically in our choices made. One side says God is the author of sin which I believe to be heresy, the other says God sovereignly uses sin for His glory. I believe IN SPITE OF SIN, God uses man and sin for His glory.

Men are responsible not because they can free-will to be, or not to be sinners. Men are responsible simply because God has ALL power to make every man respond. They will have to respond and they will have NO free-choice in the matter. God will by His will simply CAUSE all men to respond.

For many that may be hard to understand.

God is responsible for all things that exist. There exists NOTHING at all unless God has been the ultimate cause of it to exist.

I have just used the word "responsible" in two ways. God will not be made to respond to men for any reason.

He is the ultimate cause of everything that comes to pass. Everything is planned and mapped out by Him since eternity past.

ALL things were made by Him and for Him.

God bless you! KJB
wave.gif
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by whatever:
The Calvinists that I know believe that man is totally responsible for sin by free will and that God uses man and sin for His glory. They do not believe that God is the author of sin. Since you are not Calvinist are you saying that you do believe that God is the author of sin? [/QB]
Hmm = several problems there.

#1. God says "man is ENSLAVED to sin" in Romans 6 and in Eph 2:1-5 the only "free will" aspect is that man in free will chooses to reject the REAL escape from sin offerred through Christ. Chooses NOT to the OPEN the door as Christ knocks. But being alone on the inside and NOT in union with Christ - lost humanity is "enslaved" to sin.

#2. You say no Calvinists have posted here saying God is the author of sin - in fact of SATAN's very words. Read some of JohnP's posts to expand that horizon.

SEE how seldom "if ever" any Calvinist challenges his view that God IS the author of sin!

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:


"Judgment was passed in favor of the saints"
Originally posted by Jarthur001:

favor? humm

sorry..that was to easy..
Indeed that is the "difference" between arbitrary and partial -- vs impartial.

When objective "judgment" is passed in favor of the defendant - that is NOT "how we define partiality".

IF the simple act of being judged by an objective standard and then HAVING judgment passed in your favor - was the definition of "partiality" we would need to rewrite all of life.

There is no possibiliy of a spin on this Romans 2 point and Daniel 7 support for objective impartial judgment.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by whatever:
The Calvinists that I know believe that man is totally responsible for sin by free will and that God uses man and sin for His glory. They do not believe that God is the author of sin. Since you are not Calvinist are you saying that you do believe that God is the author of sin?
Hmm = several problems there.

#1. God says "man is ENSLAVED to sin" in Romans 6 and in Eph 2:1-5 the only "free will" aspect is that man in free will chooses to reject the REAL escape from sin offerred through Christ. Chooses NOT to the OPEN the door as Christ knocks. But being alone on the inside and NOT in union with Christ - lost humanity is "enslaved" to sin.

#2. You say no Calvinists have posted here saying God is the author of sin - in fact of SATAN's very words. Read some of JohnP's posts to expand that horizon.

SEE how seldom "if ever" any Calvinist challenges his view that God IS the author of sin!

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

There are a few that do hold to "God makes sin" other than just KJB. I'll not list all the names I know of, but there are a few. There are also many more Arminiam that think ALL calvnist hold to this "God makes sin" when in fact they do not. This is not calvins teachings..but beyond it unto something close to hyper-calvin. Below you will find a fuller meaing of the Sin Doctrine..as posted already on this tread. I will add again, meaning Arminian holds to something like this just as calvin.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1543/11.html#000158
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:


"Judgment was passed in favor of the saints"

Originally posted by Jarthur001:

favor? humm

sorry..that was to easy..
Indeed that is the "difference" between arbitrary and partial -- vs impartial.

When objective "judgment" is passed in favor of the defendant - that is NOT "how we define partiality".

IF the simple act of being judged by an objective standard and then HAVING judgment passed in your favor - was the definition of "partiality" we would need to rewrite all of life.

There is no possibiliy of a spin on this Romans 2 point and Daniel 7 support for objective impartial judgment.

In Christ,

Bob
</font>[/QUOTE]the above post was only a joke..for i saw your use of the word. I know where you stand...just giving you a hard time.
 

whatever

New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by whatever:
The Calvinists that I know believe that man is totally responsible for sin by free will and that God uses man and sin for His glory. They do not believe that God is the author of sin. Since you are not Calvinist are you saying that you do believe that God is the author of sin?
Hmm = several problems there.

#1. God says "man is ENSLAVED to sin" in Romans 6 and in Eph 2:1-5 the only "free will" aspect is that man in free will chooses to reject the REAL escape from sin offerred through Christ. Chooses NOT to the OPEN the door as Christ knocks. But being alone on the inside and NOT in union with Christ - lost humanity is "enslaved" to sin.
</font>[/QUOTE]Have you ever committed a sin against your will? I haven't. I do not know of anyone who has.

#2. You say no Calvinists have posted here saying God is the author of sin - in fact of SATAN's very words. Read some of JohnP's posts to expand that horizon.
No, that is not what I said. I suppose I should get used to being misquoted and my statements being misrepresented, but I haven't yet. I said that no Calvinist that I know says that. I do not know johnp, but from what I have read of his views I would say that he goes too far and that he has at least one foot in the hyper camp. He does seem to be a nice chap, though.

SEE how seldom "if ever" any Calvinist challenges his view that God IS the author of sin!
I cannot speak for others and why they respond or do not respond. I can only say that I stand with my Calvinistic Baptist forefathers in saying that God is not the author of sin.
 
Top