Origin of Sin, Part Deux

[Luke2427]

Several years ago, this is the conclusion I reached as well which made me a lot less dogmatic about my opposition to the idea of libertarian free will...or the ability of man to originate a thought, intent and thus make free choices in a similar manner that God would make choices.

Calvinists typically condemn libertarians for their appeal to mystery, because we don't have a deterministic explanation as to how or why every free choice is made, but as this thread proves we are not the only ones who must appeal to mystery in this regard. The ORIGIN of a thought, desire or intent is at the very heart of this debate and both camps, whether they admit it or not, must appeal to mystery.

Personally I'd rather err on the side of avoiding impugning God's holiness by avoiding any appearance of even suggesting that God might author/originate sin. I believe you can do that without lessoning your view of divine sovereignty.

Two things:

1. This ignores the facts of Scripture. Yes, EVERY subject when traced far enough must be abandoned to mystery. We can only know so much about ANY subject.

But the facts of the Scripture are clear.

God willed, planned and ordained the temporal existence of evil to serve holy ultimate eternal purposes.
I have appealed to numerous Scriptures that make this clear. There are others.

2. If you err, as I believe the Scripture plainly teaches you do, it is not on the side of the holiness of God because it is impossible to impugn the character of God when you trust that his motives are pure. God can will for evil to exist- he does, Scripture is clear- and will it for the highest and holiest of purposes: his ultimate eternal glory and our eternal good and happiness. It is not possible for this position to impugn God's holiness.

Furthermore, you err on the side of impugning his Sovereign Power and Wisdom.

Millions, yea billions, of things happen every day that God wishes would not happen- things he did not plan for nor does he truly control- if God did not will for evil to exist.


I CANNOT, a thousand times CANNOT, abide such an idea!

God bless!

It has been enjoyable. I am glad to continue this any time.

 

[Luke2427]

Well, that would depend on how you define the word "willed," and since you refuse to define any terms I'm not sure I'm willing to commit to anything you might attribute to me, and I say that with all due respect and sincerity. I really don't know what you mean by certain terms.

I'll say this. I agree with Edwards who believed that God permitted the fall, foreknowing the events, allowing them to occur and if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow. Is that all you mean by "willed?"

You do not agree with Edwards' since you are hung up on only part of what he was saying while completely excluding the other part.

God is a disposer of event so that evil will infallibly follow. He orders events SO THAT evil will come to be. That is what you seem to be missing. God willed evil to exist.

That is the Calvinistic position that Edwards enunciates.

 

[webdog]

Your prophetic abilities are based on your lack of understanding.

On the contrary, they are based on my understanding on how you debate...and you didn't disappoint.

The question is in error assuming that I must give one of the two answers he requires.

Only a fool would answer such a question in such a way.

Hey! Why don't you give it a shot?

I'll give it a shot...He permitted it. There, that wasn't so hard was it? He either allows something, or He declares it. There is no middle "mystery" answer, and no complex answer. You are just stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you state He decrees it, you have crossed over completely to the hyper side and made God the author of sin. If you state He allows it, you have succumbed to our position. It's intellectually dishonest to state it is not one or the other.

You are forever prancing around here on baptistboard in your usual antagonistic nagging manner saying, "Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just answer the question?" when you obviously do not understand why intelligent people do not yield to such questions.

Antagonistic manner? You are a riot. You call my theology "nameless" and not orthodox...and I'm antagonistic?!

See the definition of a false dilemma below:

False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

1. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?

I know what it is...and Skan's question is NOT a false dilemma unless you can clearly show how instead of performing a front walkover, side flip aerial 360 dismount on a simple question.

 

[DHK]

God willed, planned and ordained the temporal existence of evil to serve holy ultimate eternal purposes.
I have appealed to numerous Scriptures that make this clear. There are others.

Then you have misunderstood the Scriptures that you have appealed to.

God does not contradict his own nature. He is immutable. He doesn't change. He is a God of love and not of hate or darkness (the opposite of evil and love). Both cannot exist with God.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. (1 John 2:9)

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (1 John 4:8)

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:18)

We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:3-5)

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:9-10)
_______________________________________________________

God is light; in Him is no darkness. You cannot attribute darkness to God. That is what is being done when sin or evil is being attributed to God. This is impossible since God is light and the light overcomes the darkness; the darkness cannot overcome the light, therefore darkness cannot be attributed to God.

God is love, good, kind, gracious, merciful, etc.
The Bible does not describe God as vindictive, cruel, evil, nor the author thereof. Yet you have set him up as that type of God--a God that has ordained and decreed evil: murder, terrorism, abortion, etc.

All sin is the result of the depraved heart of man. It is not the result of God. Man must take responsibility for his own actions. God does not force man to sin. He sins of his own choice, his own free will. No one forces him to do wrong, not even Satan. That is why Adam's sin cannot be blamed either on Eve nor on Satan. He alone is responsible. We all are. We all have a depraved nature. God did not cause it. God did not ordain that we do evil. His omniscience tells us that he knew all along what would happen, the choices that we would make; but that doesn't mean he would force us to do it.

That entire concept would make prayer and evangelism totally irrelevant.
It would make the Great Commission meaningless.
If all is ordained, why witness, why pray?
That is the logical conclusion is it not?

 

[Skandelon]

You do not agree with Edwards' since you are hung up on only part of what he was saying while completely excluding the other part.

But I never excluded any part of his quote. At one time I asked you to define the word "dispose" because I didn't understand YOUR intent (and still don't btw), but I have no problem with that in the context of what Edwards said. I even restated what he said in my own words and completely acknowledged that God foreknows all future events and has permitted them thus disposing them to certainly come to pass. I don't know how you still think I have excluded any part of his quote.

God is a disposer of event so that evil will infallibly follow. He orders events SO THAT evil will come to be. That is what you seem to be missing. God willed evil to exist.

And I'm not taking issue with that, if you mean it as Edwards explained.

That is the Calvinistic position that Edwards enunciates.

Actually it is consistent with historical Arminianism, but some more deterministic calvinists would take issue with it. In fact, some just come right out and say that God originated and authored sin without any hesitation because they rather go there then accept any form of mystery or logical inconsistency in their position. It's sad, really.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

This is a quote you posted from Edward's.
But if, by ‘the author of sin,’ is mean the permitter, or not a hinderer 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 or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin

This your response to the above quote.
"This is why I continue to refer to Edwards view as being the same as mine"

Then, please define what is meant, at least to you, by "disposer of the state events"?

And since your view of LFW is involved in this debate.
Could you reconcile "will most certainly and infallibly follow", with the no "antecedent conditions" and "causal laws" determining Adam's actions?


You said, "This is why I continue to refer to Edwards view as being the same as mine.."

Then, do you affirm that indeed "God is the author of sin"?

 

[Skandelon]

Two things:

1. This ignores the facts of Scripture. Yes, EVERY subject when traced far enough must be abandoned to mystery. We can only know so much about ANY subject.

Nothing about the claims of LFW contradict the scriptures.

But the facts of the Scripture are clear.

Which ones? What about this one? Is it clearly teaching Total Depravity?

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

My point is that some scriptures must be understood and interpreted within the context of ones particular viewpoint. We both have scriptures which seem to be supporting our premise and we both have explanations for the other camps proof texts. Just making a blanket statement claiming scripture supports your view and not ours is not really adding much to the discussion.

2. If you err, as I believe the Scripture plainly teaches you do, it is not on the side of the holiness of God because it is impossible to impugn the character of God when you trust that his motives are pure.

So, as long as you add "He meant well" to the end of any accusation, you'd be ok with pinning it onto God? I don't think so.

God can will for evil to exist- he does, Scripture is clear- and will it for the highest and holiest of purposes: his ultimate eternal glory and our eternal good and happiness. It is not possible for this position to impugn God's holiness.

It is if you go so far as to making God the originator/author of sin.

Furthermore, you err on the side of impugning his Sovereign Power and Wisdom.

Only if your perspective suggests that it would be more sovereign and powerful for God to play both sides of the chess board in order to win his game where every desire, move, act and choice is made by HIM, rather than creating and permitting free moral agents to make decisions, do evil, rebel, hate, be reconciled, worship, stumble, cry, hurt, rejoice and love freely while He intervenes to bring about his redemptive purpose and ultimate victory.

Millions, yea billions, of things happen every day that God wishes would not happen- things he did not plan for nor does he truly control- if God did not will for evil to exist.

Now we both affirm that he has allowed it, but what is the problem with his not "controlling" or "originating" it? Why is that such a problem for you? Is he not powerful enough to overcome despite the fact that he gives his creatures some measure of control and power? How is that lessoning God sovereignty? If anything it seems to make him seem even more powerful. Its the difference between a kid playing with his plastic army men so as to determine their every move to make sure he wins and a general using his power, intelligence and might to ensure victory over a real enemy.

Just my perspective.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

?

That entire concept would make prayer and evangelism totally irrelevant.
It would make the Great Commission meaningless.
If all is ordained, why witness, why pray?
That is the logical conclusion is it not?

Because God ordains the "means" as well as the "ends".

One should do a review of evangelical church history, then determine if he could continue to make such a statement.

Here are a few to start with.
David Brainerd
William Carey
John Eliot
Adoniram Judson

A quote from Dr. Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.

In its healthier strand, Reformed theology gave way to the modern missionary movement. I don’t hesitate to point out that the father of the modern missionary movement was William Carey, who happened to be a 5-point Calvinist. The father of Baptist missions in America was Adoniram Judson. He was a 5-point Calvinist. You can trace both Carey and Judson’s inspiration for missions back to David Brainerd, who was a 5-point Calvinist. And of course, the most famous Baptist preacher ever, in any context, was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a wonderful gospel preacher who built the largest church in the world at the particular time that he was alive. All of that is something that should be applauded.

 

[Skandelon]

Then, please define what is meant, at least to you, by "disposer of the state events"?

I already did back in the thread and I'm tired of typing. Please go back and read it if you don't mind.

And since your view of LFW is involved in this debate.
Could you reconcile "will most certainly and infallibly follow", with the no "antecedent conditions" and "causal laws" determining Adam's actions?

God's foreknowledge and permitting of the evil or the events leading up to that point are not causal, just foreknown and permitted. I don't see the problem.

For instance, when the thought originated in Dahmer's mind to kill a child, God knew it because Dahmer thought it, not the other way around. Dahmer's thought made God know it and He permitted it and all the events leading up to it to exist, thus they most certainly and infallibly followed.

You said, "This is why I continue to refer to Edwards view as being the same as mine.."

Then, do you affirm that indeed "God is the author of sin"?

Go back and read the quote in its entirety and I think you will see that Edwards was answering his critics who were accusing him of believing that his views made God the author of sin... He actually didn't like that term for the same reasons Luke and others here are dancing around it.

 

[The Archangel]

The Archangel...you out there?

Your wrong thinking: The Archangel reads every post in every thread

Your wrong thinking: The Archangel has no life and never takes his wife out.

Your point? Again, to drag me through the mud assuming 1.) I read every post on every thread and 2.) You assume that I only ever sit at home and read Baptist Board.

Does your obtuseness know no end? Are you that desperate to drag me through the mud?

You have issues, I'm afraid.

The Archangel

PS. It would appear that Skandelon agreed with the statement (though he may have done so tongue-in-cheek). And, I would agree that a good dose of Arminianism, perhaps along the lines of a great hero of the faith John Wesley, is far preferable to the health-and-wealth false gospel or any number of other false gospels that are out there. Notice, then, by saying this I am affirming that Arminianism is not a false gospel. So, cool you jets and quit attacking persons.

PPS. It would also seem that you've forgotten that not too long ago I cautioned GLF about seeming to question your salvation. But I guess in Webdog-land no good kindness goes unpunished.

 

[quantumfaith]

Nothing about the claims of LFW contradict the scriptures.

Which ones? What about this one? Is it clearly teaching Total Depravity?

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

My point is that some scriptures must be understood and interpreted within the context of ones particular viewpoint. We both have scriptures which seem to be supporting our premise and we both have explanations for the other camps proof texts. Just making a blanket statement claiming scripture supports your view and not ours is not really adding much to the discussion.


So, as long as you add "He meant well" to the end of any accusation, you'd be ok with pinning it onto God? I don't think so.


It is if you go so far as to making God the originator/author of sin.

Only if your perspective suggests that it would be more sovereign and powerful for God to play both sides of the chess board in order to win his game where every desire, move, act and choice is made by HIM, rather than creating and permitting free moral agents to make decisions, do evil, rebel, hate, be reconciled, worship, stumble, cry, hurt, rejoice and love freely while He intervenes to bring about his redemptive purpose and ultimate victory.

Now we both affirm that he has allowed it, but what is the problem with his not "controlling" or "originating" it? Why is that such a problem for you? Is he not powerful enough to overcome despite the fact that he gives his creatures some measure of control and power? How is that lessoning God sovereignty? If anything it seems to make him seem even more powerful. Its the difference between a kid playing with his plastic army men so as to determine their every move to make sure he wins and a general using his power, intelligence and might to ensure victory over a real enemy.

Just my perspective.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Hope you got that one R....

 

[DHK]

Because God ordains the "means" as well as the "ends".

One should do a review of evangelical church history, then determine if he could continue to make such a statement.

Here are a few to start with.
David Brainerd
William Carey
John Eliot
Adoniram Judson

A quote from Dr. Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.

In its healthier strand, Reformed theology gave way to the modern missionary movement. I don’t hesitate to point out that the father of the modern missionary movement was William Carey, who happened to be a 5-point Calvinist. The father of Baptist missions in America was Adoniram Judson. He was a 5-point Calvinist. You can trace both Carey and Judson’s inspiration for missions back to David Brainerd, who was a 5-point Calvinist. And of course, the most famous Baptist preacher ever, in any context, was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a wonderful gospel preacher who built the largest church in the world at the particular time that he was alive. All of that is something that should be applauded.

Are we discussing followers of a man's theology, church history, or the Bible? I am familiar with the above. But I am not here to discuss missions as they do not have anything to do with the OP. I am pointing out the inconsistency in one poster's (and yours if you agree with him) theology.
So, let's not take the rabbit trails of reading other men's theologies.

The question is: Is God the author of sin. That is, Did he actually ordain or decree sin, such as abortion, rape, and terrorism?

Or, secondly, is God all-good, and the author of only that which is good, but allows evil in this universe, such as he allowed Satan to bring evil on Job. He did not ordain evil to be so, but he allows it to run its course. There is a big difference here.

 

[quantumfaith]

Are we discussing followers of a man's theology, church history, or the Bible? I am familiar with the above. But I am not here to discuss missions as they do not have anything to do with the OP. I am pointing out the inconsistency in one poster's (and yours if you agree with him) theology.
So, let's not take the rabbit trails of reading other men's theologies.

The question is: Is God the author of sin. That is, Did he actually ordain or decree sin, such as abortion, rape, and terrorism?

Or, secondly, is God all-good, and the author of only that which is good, but allows evil in this universe, such as he allowed Satan to bring evil on Job. He did not ordain evil to be so, but he allows it to run its course. There is a big difference here.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[slave 4 Christ]

QUOTE from Skandelon;

I already did back in the thread and I'm tired of typing. Please go back and read it if you don't mind.

I do mind, and I did not find any clear cut definition of "the disposer of events". Please define what you mean, and what you think Edward's means.
It will beneficial in this debate.
You don't mind defining do you?
If your tired tomorrow will be fine.

God's foreknowledge and permitting of the evil or the events leading up to that point are not causal, just foreknown and permitted. I don't see the problem

Edward's said "disposer of the state of events", not just permitting events leading up to the event.
If God is "disposing" the state of events, then He is doing more than just simple foreknowledge.
It seems to me, this is the very epitome of "antecedent condition" and "causal law" in determining that sin will take place.

Not necessarily the "sinning" (ie.the actions), but everything that made the whole event/sin (ie. the act) possible.

For instance, when the thought originated in Dahmer's mind to kill a child, God knew it because Dahmer thought it, not the other way around. Dahmer's thought made God know it and He permitted it and all the events leading up to it to exist, thus they most certainly and infallibly followed.

This is an appeal to pity type argument. It serves no purpose toward truth in debate. This kind of illustration only polarizes, and cannot be productive.

Let me illustrate:
An atheist would say "What an unloving, impotent, and terrible God you claim. For if He knew about this heinous act, even knew beforehand Dahmer's thoughts. Why did your weak god not stop him"?

Also the statement, "Dahmer's thought made God know it and He permitted it and all the events leading up to it to exist" raises another question.

How is this any less egregious as to the character of God?

Did God say, here is a situation Dahmer has "made" me know, I will now foresee if I can work this to My grand plan?
Did God foresee two people that would choose to have Dahmer?
Did God foresee the one who provided the wicked material that sparked Dahmer?
Did God foresee the lives of Dahmer's victims?
Did God foresee and then just simply permit all these things, by happenstance, to connect?
If their connection was not "happenstance" then what caused the connection?

No, your thought does not compute. Because at some point in your above illustration, God has to determine events that must happen.
And then so that the crime will not be senseless, God must "determine" that the crime has a purpose unto his glory.

Your scenario reduces God to being ever at the disposal of man's "free will".

Go back and read the quote in its entirety and I think you will see that Edwards was answering his critics who were accusing him of believing that his views made God the author of sin... He actually didn't like that term for the same reasons Luke and others here are dancing around it.

Is this the same reason you will not affirm as Edward's did that "God is the author of sin"?

 

[The Archangel]

Your scenario reduces God to being ever at the disposal of man's "free will".

Therein lies the rub.

The theology that does not account for the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man, is no true theology. As you have rightly shown, slave4christ, this is anthropology, not theology.

The fact of the matter is this: The Bible claims God is absolutely sovereign, ordering (causing, ordaining, decreeing, etc.--as the case requires) every event. Yet, even the catastrophes and "evils" that befall any and all of mankind are ultimately to serve His purposes. So even the free actions (and they are free actions) of humans--even those that murder--serve His purposes.

After all one cannot say these evils (and there are legion!) do not serve His purposes while Romans 8:28 remains in the Bible.

I find it interesting that those who scream the loudest that "all always means all without exception" discount that very thing in Romans 8:28--And we know that for those who love God, God works all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

So either "all" doesn't mean "all without exception" every time or there is divine purpose in even the evil that men do to one another.

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

Therein lies the rub.

The theology that does not account for the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man, is no true theology. As you have rightly shown, slave4christ, this is anthropology, not theology.

The fact of the matter is this: The Bible claims God is absolutely sovereign, ordering (causing, ordaining, decreeing, etc.--as the case requires) every event. Yet, even the catastrophes and "evils" that befall any and all of mankind are ultimately to serve His purposes. So even the free actions (and they are free actions) of humans--even those that murder--serve His purposes.

After all one cannot say these evils (and there are legion!) do not serve His purposes while Romans 8:28 remains in the Bible.

I find it interesting that those who scream the loudest that "all always means all without exception" discount that very thing in Romans 8:28--And we know that for those who love God, God works all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

So either "all" doesn't mean "all without exception" every time or there is divine purpose in even the evil that men do to one another.

The Archangel

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What do you say about this prospective?

http://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/god-is-not-the-author-of-sin/

 

[quantumfaith]

What do you say about this prospective?

http://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/god-is-not-the-author-of-sin/

I like it..... and not because he is being "critical" of reformed theology. I just like it.

 

[Luke2427]

Did you miss Post #26 where I provided Edwards quote in its entirety, acknowledged its equality with historical Arminianism and my views?

No, of course not.

Did you miss where I responded to your post and showed how you are STILL dealing with only one part of what he is saying in that very quote?

 

[webdog]

Your wrong thinking: The Archangel reads every post in every thread

Your wrong thinking: The Archangel has no life and never takes his wife out.

Your point? Again, to drag me through the mud assuming 1.) I read every post on every thread and 2.) You assume that I only ever sit at home and read Baptist Board.

Does your obtuseness know no end? Are you that desperate to drag me through the mud?

You have issues, I'm afraid.

The Archangel

PS. It would appear that Skandelon agreed with the statement (though he may have done so tongue-in-cheek). And, I would agree that a good dose of Arminianism, perhaps along the lines of a great hero of the faith John Wesley, is far preferable to the health-and-wealth false gospel or any number of other false gospels that are out there. Notice, then, by saying this I am affirming that Arminianism is not a false gospel. So, cool you jets and quit attacking persons.

PPS. It would also seem that you've forgotten that not too long ago I cautioned GLF about seeming to question your salvation. But I guess in Webdog-land no good kindness goes unpunished.

I meant it as a joke. Apparently someone has issues, all right.

P.S. the point was not arminiansim, but those who hold to neither calvinism nor arminianism on all points...the "nameless, unorthodox theology" I guess you agree with Luke on that those like Allan, Tom Butler, Hank, quantum, convicted, Winman, Amy, John of Japan, et al and myself hold to.

P.P.S. I like your joke about "cautioning" glf, too. That was good. The "non-rebuke-rebuke" :laugh: :thumbs: