Non-Calvinists: Best argument?

[PastorSBC1303]

Bill and PastorSBC: I think the problem that both of you are feeling would be alleviated by understanding that the OT gives God very human attributes -- anthropomorphisms. This was in accomodation to the people for whom the OT was written...so that they could understand. The point of all of the passages we are talking about is not whether or not God created or caused anything; the point is that God is the behind it all.

If we want to know what the Bible has to say about God's role with evil and sin we should look to passages that are about that: like James 1, which clearly indicates that evil and sin are the fault of humanity. It is one of the rules of interpretation: the clearer passage that is actually about the subject in question is the one on which to lean.

Thanks Matt. I am glad to see you have been able to grasp it all.

It just seems like there is more there than what you have stated here...

The more I study it, the more I feel like I really do not grasp just how big and powerful our God truly is.

Maybe I am just overanlyzing something. It is an interesting concept, and I appreciate your thoughts on it.

 

[The Archangel]

Good post..n/t

OK...I don't get what "n/t" means. Would someone please enlighten me?

The Archangel

 

[TCGreek]

Bill and PastorSBC: I think the problem that both of you are feeling would be alleviated by understanding that the OT gives God very human attributes -- anthropomorphisms. This was in accomodation to the people for whom the OT was written...so that they could understand. The point of all of the passages we are talking about is not whether or not God created or caused anything; the point is that God is the behind it all.

If we want to know what the Bible has to say about God's role with evil and sin we should look to passages that are about that: like James 1, which clearly indicates that evil and sin are the fault of humanity. It is one of the rules of interpretation: the clearer passage that is actually about the subject in question is the one on which to lean.

Good point, cowboymatt.

1. Plus, in the cotext of the OT, it was the monotheism of the Jews against the henotheism and polytheism and so on of the pagan gods.

2. That is why we read often the expresssion: "So that they may know the God of Israel."

3. Above all else, the OT portrays God as the sovereign of the Universe.

4. Consider a book like Daniel and the sovereignty of God and the realization Neby came to:

At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.
His dominion is an eternal dominion;
his kingdom endures from generation to generation.

All the peoples of the earth
are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven
and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: "What have you done?" (Dan 4:34, 35, NIV, emphasis mine)

5. And I love Amos 3:6:

When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it? (NIV).

 

[cowboymatt]

Most Calvinists would agree with you here, which is why a belief in Calvinism does not require a belief that God is the direct cause or author of sin. So I think your no. 2 objection in your original post is not really a valid one against Calvinism. It might be valid objection against God's omniscience, though. Truth is, if you believe in the perfect omniscience of God, you can be accused of God "causing" sin, since He knew what was going to come about when He decided to create the world. There was a good discussion between Russell55 and Allan regarding this very issue here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=46878

My second point still stands, at least in my mind, because it is the result of taking the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity to its logical end.

 

[webdog]

Can God create something and still not be the original cause of it?

This is where my struggle comes in....

Yes. My father "created me" so to speak, and if I built the home I live in, I created the home and am the original cause of the home, not my father. He is the original cause of me.

 

[JustChristian]

Yes. My father "created me" so to speak, and if I built the home I live in, I created the home and am the original cause of the home, not my father. He is the original cause of me.

I don't think the analogy holds. Our earthly fathers really have a very limited control over what we become and what we do in our lives. God, on the other hand, could have created a garden of Eden without the tree of good and evil. He could have created man without freedom of choice. He could have predestined that there would never be sin in the world. He did none of these things. If He had the outcome would have been much different.

 

[Andy T.]

My second point still stands, at least in my mind, because it is the result of taking the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity to its logical end.

Maybe you could elaborate on this point, if you have time. How do you define Total Depravity or how do you think Calvinism defines T.D.?

BTW, I've heard the same charge from Open Theists that if God is omniscient then that makes him the author of sin by virtue of knowing what would come about by his choosing to create the world.

 

[MB]

Can God create something and still not be the original cause of it?

Yes; God created man and the natural man is in rebellion against His will. How can this be? It's called freewill. Can't you sin anytime you wish? Of course you can, is it God that made you sin against His own will? I'm sorry but a house devided against itself cannot stand. We cannot blame God for our sins as some do. We all have a choice to rebel with our freewill. Jonah did, Pharoah did, The Jews did, We all have at sometime or another and because God gave us the right to choose evil, doesn't make Him responsible for our choice. His responsibility ended when God gave man a will of his own. No man is forced into sin we all do it because we want to not because God wants us to.
MB

 

[webdog]

I don't think the analogy holds. Our earthly fathers really have a very limited control over what we become and what we do in our lives. God, on the other hand, could have created a garden of Eden without the tree of good and evil. He could have created man without freedom of choice. He could have predestined that there would never be sin in the world. He did none of these things. If He had the outcome would have been much different.

Are you implying God is the author of sin? How does the analogy not hold if the one who created me is not the cause of what I created? God created man...man creates sin, not God.

 

[cowboymatt]

Maybe you could elaborate on this point, if you have time. How do you define Total Depravity or how do you think Calvinism defines T.D.?

BTW, I've heard the same charge from Open Theists that if God is omniscient then that makes him the author of sin by virtue of knowing what would come about by his choosing to create the world.

What the Open Theists say is a legitimate argument. There are times in theology when it is best to through our hands up and say, "I don't know! God and his ways are bigger than my abilities to think and reason!" The interaction between human free will (which is evident in Scripture from beginning to end) and God's sovereignty (also evident in Scripture from beginning to end) is a mystery to us at the end of the day. Human free will alone can't be the answer because then humans would have a reason to boast in choosing Christ; but God's determinism can't be the only answer because it makes people like puppets and doesn't square will all of Scripture. It seems to me that we have to hold these two ideas in tension. Is that easy? No. Is it fun or popular? No. But I still think that we should do it.

As to your first question: if people have no free will and God predetermines everything, then God must be the author of evil because it couldn't have originated in people because they have no free will. And you can't pawn it off on Satan, because God made him and if God predetermines all, then he made Satan evil and made him influence Adam and Even and ultimately all the humans to sin. If you push the notion of TD and God's predeterminism to their logical ends, God is on the hook for sin and evil...something that, if true, makes me not think that he is worthy of worship.

 

[Andy T.]

As to your first question: if people have no free will and God predetermines everything, then God must be the author of evil because it couldn't have originated in people because they have no free will. And you can't pawn it off on Satan, because God made him and if God predetermines all, then he made Satan evil and made him influence Adam and Even and ultimately all the humans to sin. If you push the notion of TD and God's predeterminism to their logical ends, God is on the hook for sin and evil...something that, if true, makes me not think that he is worthy of worship.

Total depravity, at least the way I understand it, doesn't deny free will. It simply says that after the Fall, man's nature is such that he chooses according to his sinful nature. So he is free, but he is limited by his sin nature. It is him sinning, not God programming him to sin. It says nothing about God influencing or causing man to sin. It simply says that man's nature is so fallen that all he wants to do is sin and rebel against God. Now, you may not agree with that concept, but hopefully you can free yourself from the misconception that Calvinism teaches or implies that God programs, influences or makes man sin.

 

[AAA]

OK...I don't get what "n/t" means. Would someone please enlighten me?

The Archangel

"N/T" means "no text", or do not even bother with opening it to look for something to read, because there is nothing there to read......

 

[The Archangel]

"N/T" means "no text", or do not even bother with opening it to look for something to read, because there is nothing there to read......

So did you mean to say "Good post but no text?" Or did you think my post was a bunch of hooey?

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.

The Archangel

 

[cowboymatt]

Total depravity, at least the way I understand it, doesn't deny free will. It simply says that after the Fall, man's nature is such that he chooses according to his sinful nature. So he is free, but he is limited by his sin nature. It is him sinning, not God programming him to sin. It says nothing about God influencing or causing man to sin. It simply says that man's nature is so fallen that all he wants to do is sin and rebel against God. Now, you may not agree with that concept, but hopefully you can free yourself from the misconception that Calvinism teaches or implies that God programs, influences or makes man sin.

I am not arguing that the doctrines of Calvin are bad, I am arguing that their logical ends are bad. If you combine total depravity with God's predeterminism, you must admit that you aren't left with anything other than God causing people to sin. That is the logical end of those two doctrines. Calvin and his followers may want to resist this, but logic is logic.

 

[TCGreek]

I am not arguing that the doctrines of Calvin are bad, I am arguing that their logical ends are bad. If you combine total depravity with God's predeterminism, you must admit that you aren't left with anything other than God causing people to sin. That is the logical end of those two doctrines. Calvin and his followers may want to resist this, but logic is logic.

How then do we understand Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28?

 

[cowboymatt]

The passages in Acts are about Jesus being predestined to die as the Messiah. Even most Arminians would agree that Jesus was selected for this puprose even before the Incarnation, if not from the very foundations of the world.

Luke 22.22 is also about Jesus going the way decreed for him, again something that virtually no Christian (besides maybe Open Theists) would have a problem with him. Interestingly, what gets people in trouble according to Luke 22.22, betraying the Son of Man. Betrayal is a willful decision and action, the result of thought and free will.

 

[TCGreek]

The passages in Acts are about Jesus being predestined to die as the Messiah. Even most Arminians would agree that Jesus was selected for this puprose even before the Incarnation, if not from the very foundations of the world.

Luke 22.22 is also about Jesus going the way decreed for him, again something that virtually no Christian (besides maybe Open Theists) would have a problem with him. Interestingly, what gets people in trouble according to Luke 22.22, betraying the Son of Man. Betrayal is a willful decision and action, the result of thought and free will.

Did the predetermination include the wicked hands of those who carried out the death of Christ? Acts 2:23 seems to be saying this.

 

[cowboymatt]

Did the predetermination include the wicked hands of those who carried out the death of Christ? Acts 2:23 seems to be saying this.

"with the help of wicked men" seems to only be a judgment of these people's character. That God used "wicked men" is of no surprise, he's done that from way back (Pharaoh).

 

[TCGreek]

"with the help of wicked men" seems to only be a judgment of these people's character. That God used "wicked men" is of no surprise, he's done that from way back (Pharaoh).

If I understand your post correctly, then wicked people were predetermined by God.

 

[cowboymatt]

Or were people used by God and their actions then called "wicked." I don't know. And it doesn't matter by the way. If we are going to base our entire theology on one vague reference to evil people being used by God, then we all need help!