God responsible for evil?

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Linda64:
R.C.Sproul is a partial Preterist and a Calvinist--hardly someone whose reasoning I would dare to follow.

There are two problems with this statement.

1. It is a refutation based on character assassination. I particularly resent this because I believe most of what Calvin taught, even though Calvin just built upon the much larger foundation laid by Martin Luther.

2. Sproul (Jr.) isn't saying anything that wasn't already said by Paul in Romans. So unless you want to toss out some harsh labels for Paul in order to dismiss what he says, you really can't argue against Sproul Jr., who's saying the same thing.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
Evil is the absence of good and comes about through action - rebellion against God. God does not create rebellion against himself.

More specifically, evil is the absence of God. Sproul suggests that Satan became evil because God withdrew some of Himself from Satan. He also suggests that God changed Eve's inclination so that she would become deceived. If Sproul is correct, then in a very real sense, God did create rebellion against Himself.
</font>[/QUOTE]"God withdrew some of Himself from Satan?" That's really bizarre. Also, God caused Eve so that she would be deceived? This clearly goes against Romans 5 which puts the blame on man for sin entering the world.

As far as Sproul's thoughts go that you quoted (which I did not quote again), those are his speculations and I disagree with them. I don't decide theology by trying to imagine how God thinks. We can't know how God thinks -- we're told that in the Bible ("my ways are above your ways; my thoughts above your thoughts" - loose paraphrase from memory).

I think Sproul is just doing mental gymnastics in order to fit his views into scripture.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Marcia:
As far as Sproul's thoughts go that you quoted (which I did not quote again), those are his speculations and I disagree with them.

Sproul's "speculation" happens to mirror exactly what scripture says. Feel free to disagree with scripture.

 

[Linda64]

There are two problems with this statement.

1. It is a refutation based on character assassination. I particularly resent this because I believe most of what Calvin taught, even though Calvin just built upon the much larger foundation laid by Martin Luther.

It is not a refutation based on character assassination if it is true--and it is true. R.C.Sproul is a partial Preterist and a Calvinist, both of which contain non biblical teachings. Which part of Calvin's teachings do you not believe?

2. Sproul (Jr.) isn't saying anything that wasn't already said by Paul in Romans. So unless you want to toss out some harsh labels for Paul in order to dismiss what he says, you really can't argue against Sproul Jr., who's saying the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since R.C. Sproul is a Calvinist, he bases his teachings on John Calvin's interpretation of the Bible. John Calvin's Institutes are Augustinian in origin, based on Augustine's interpretation of Scripture. A far cry from what the apostle Paul wrote.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
As far as Sproul's thoughts go that you quoted (which I did not quote again), those are his speculations and I disagree with them.

Sproul's "speculation" happens to mirror exactly what scripture says. Feel free to disagree with scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Rom. 9 does not say that God withdrew Himself from Satan or that he gave Eve an inclination to commit evil. Preparing vessels prepared for destruction does not mean God gives people the desire to sin. I think it means that God uses rebellious men for His purpose. When people continue to reject God, God gives them over and of course, God knew that would happen.

Well, this will probably be it for several days for me. I'm leaving to speak at a conf. at SE Baptist Seminary this weekend (on Wicca), then I'm moving next week. Not sure when I can post again.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
As far as Sproul's thoughts go that you quoted (which I did not quote again), those are his speculations and I disagree with them.

Sproul's "speculation" happens to mirror exactly what scripture says. Feel free to disagree with scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Have you considered that he might be "misinterpretation" the scripture??

He is (was) Human, not God.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Linda64:
Since R.C. Sproul is a Calvinist, he bases his teachings on John Calvin's interpretation of the Bible. John Calvin's Institutes are Augustinian in origin, based on Augustine's interpretation of Scripture. A far cry from what the apostle Paul wrote.

First, someone could call me a Calvinist, but that does not mean I base my interpretation of the Bible on John Calvin's teachings. I have never even read anything Calvin wrote. Unless I knew otherwise, I would confine myself to saying that R. C. Sproul agrees with Calvin's interpretation of the Bible at least in part.

Furthermore, Martin Luther agreed with Augustine on the issue of the bondage of the will. In fact, Martin Luther's book, "Bondage of the Will" was a response to the Catholic-sponsored book by Erasmus that argued for free will.

The Baptist Confession of 1689 is adapted from Martin Luther's confession, and is laid on the foundation of predestination and total depravity. THAT is the foundation of the Baptist church. That is not what the Baptist church may be today, but it is ironic that you're arguing against the fundamental principles on which the Baptist church was founded -- on a Baptist forum.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Have you considered that he might be "misinterpretation" the scripture??

He is (was) Human, not God.

Compare what he said to the scripture he quotes. You be the judge as to whether or not he was misinterpreting scripture.

The two look identical to me.

 

[bjonson]

Linda,

A far cry from what Paul wrote?? You must be kidding!!

Read Eph. 1, Romans 8 and Romans 9 and see how often Paul teaches on election and predestination.

Good grief

Originally posted by Linda64:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There are two problems with this statement.

1. It is a refutation based on character assassination. I particularly resent this because I believe most of what Calvin taught, even though Calvin just built upon the much larger foundation laid by Martin Luther.

It is not a refutation based on character assassination if it is true--and it is true. R.C.Sproul is a partial Preterist and a Calvinist, both of which contain non biblical teachings. Which part of Calvin's teachings do you not believe?

2. Sproul (Jr.) isn't saying anything that wasn't already said by Paul in Romans. So unless you want to toss out some harsh labels for Paul in order to dismiss what he says, you really can't argue against Sproul Jr., who's saying the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since R.C. Sproul is a Calvinist, he bases his teachings on John Calvin's interpretation of the Bible. John Calvin's Institutes are Augustinian in origin, based on Augustine's interpretation of Scripture. A far cry from what the apostle Paul wrote. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[bjonson]

Originally posted by Linda64:
R.C.Sproul is a partial Preterist and a Calvinist--hardly someone whose reasoning I would dare to follow.

Well, Linda, I'm sure you would have to reject the following theologians/preachers/authors based on your fear of Calvinism...

Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, MacArthur, Watson, Baxter, Henry, ALL THE PURITANS, and the list goes on.

You need to understand what you think you know and are afraid of...