Hope that you have taken out a good fire insurance policy, for I see the Straw man ready to be getting burned up now big time!
-
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!
The conflicted Calvinist
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Hope that you have taken out a good fire insurance policy, for I see the Straw man ready to be getting burned up now big time!
Why are you getting upset.....you know it was just a commentary meant to pick a fight. Brother you just ignore people & commentary like that.
Sure...what is inference is the reason that sins must come. Jesus said sins come and you infer that they come because God is love and he can't enslave ect.
To your last point, it certainly is not a contradiction. It is only a contradiction if there are men who desire to "choose against him" and they are unable to. In my scenario, every created being freely chooses to follow Christ. This hypothetical person who wants to rebel but is not able does not exist (much like the sinner who desires to repent but is unable because he is not elect).
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with this. But you and others have said that God must have wanted a world with sin or else he could have created a sinless world. I believe this to be error, Jesus said sin or offences are necessary. It cannot be avoided, even by God.
Now, why would that be?
I believe that God desired fellowship with man. God is love and wants to express his love, just like we all want to get married and start a family to express our love.
I personally believe that because God is love he cannot create slaves. God does not want mindless robots, but people who freely love him of their own choice. The problem is, this makes sin possible, NO, it makes sin absolutely necessary, because whatever God creates must be inferior to him. God cannot make a morally perfect person, because only God is morally perfect. Therefore, men will eventually sin. It will ABSOLUTELY happen.
You may not agree with me. But Jesus himself said offences or sin is NECESSARY. We can debate as to why.
Again, this is inference.
"Our God is in the heavens and does ALL that he pleases."
or
"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased."
If you want the authorized version.
Truth is often thought of that way because when spoken it gives us a good look at our selves. Doesn't it?
MB
I would disagree, Jesus said that offences "must needs be". That means they must happen, they are necessary.
A verse that says God is in the heavens and does all that he pleases does not even address the subject. What does that have to do with sin being necessary?
You see, you are taking a verse that is not necessarily addressing the subject, whereas I am quoting a verse that directly address the subject. Huge difference.
We may not know why sin is necessary, but Jesus said it is. He did not say God chose sin as you seem to want to believe. That is the difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. You fellas teach that God wants sin, we do not believe that.
Right, but he doesn't say WHY they are necessary.
I disagree with you about the verse in Psalms. Creating a world that contained sin is something that God has done. Huge difference? Not if you broaden your scope a bit.
My only desire is to understand the text. I believe it is the truth. As such, I want to understand it. I want my views to be shaped by it...not the other way around.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, a hyper-Calvinist has no problem saying God is the author of sin. We have had a few persons come on here and say God desired sin so that he could save man and glorify himself. Most Calvinists will deny that God is the author of sin. And all non-Cals like myself will strongly deny God ever intended anyone to sin. The scriptures say God does not tempt any man to sin.
It would be like a doctor going to a little island to help the natives there. The only problem is, there is no sickness or disease there. The doctor gets no honor for his skills and education. So, he sends home and orders some Bubonic plague and releases it on the island. People start dying immediately from the plague. The doctor skillfully treats and heals many of the natives and they honor him as a god. Unfortunately, dozens die from the plague.
This is actually how some hyper-Calvinists view God, as a person who introduces sin so that he can save people from sin to gain honor for himself.
Of course, in our world we would prosecute such a doctor as a criminal, and rightfully so.
But many quote the very verse you posted and say God can do whatever he wants to do, and the fact that he is God makes it just and not a sin. I believe that completely absurd.
Why when falsehood is put forth, would it be a good post? God does not tempt men but God does test men. Same word in the Greek. Now if God tests a man, the man can choose to what is good, or to go the other way. If our own desires tempt us to go the other way, we can turn from temptation and do the right thing. This is Biblical truth.
To deny God sets before us life and death, because God does not tempt, is pure twaddle.
Lets consider the two cans of worms constantly used to bait believers.
Calvinists claim God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. Arminians claim God knows every future action as a certainty, yet this does not predestine that future.
To deny God sets before us life and death, because God does not tempt, is pure twaddle.
Lets consider the two cans of worms constantly used to bait believers.
Calvinists claim God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. Arminians claim God knows every future action as a certainty, yet this does not predestine that future.
Not at all upset, as Skan is more of an amusement to me!
Actually most people tell me the same exact thing, both camps
I don't really see what all that has to do with our discussion. I'd rather stay away from generalities about who's likely to believe what. Semantic games are also unhelpful.
The question is, when you read, "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"
Is your answer that we should prosecute him?
No, because I do not understand it the same way you do. I believe God knew Pharaoh would be rebellious from the beginning.
Exo 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.
18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.
19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.
20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.
I believe God in his foreknowledge knows who will believe and who will not (John 6:64). God knew the elders would listen to Moses, God knew Pharaoh would not listen and refuse to let the Jews go. God knew that after he showed many wonders Pharaoh would finally let the Jews go. It does not say so, but it is safe to assume God knew Pharaoh would chase after the Jews in an attempt to destroy them.
The point is, Pharaoh deserved destruction. This is what is meant that he was "fitted to destruction".
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Pharaoh deserved to be destroyed, he was fit or "fitted" for destruction.
God did not make Pharaoh this way, God never tempts any man to sin.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
God does not tempt ANY man, but EVERY man is tempted when he is drawn away of his OWN lust and enticed.
And if you go to Jeremiah 18 and read of the Potter, you will see God is not saying he unconditionally elects one person and unconditionally passes over another.
Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
Paul was quoting Jeremiah 18 in Romans 9. This is HARDLY showing unconditional election. It is speaking of nations (which Paul is also doing in Romans 9) and says if a nation he has spoken evil of turns from their sins, he will turn from the evil he intended toward them. God also says that if he has spoken well of a nation to benefit it, if it turn from him and do evil he would turn from the good he had purposed toward them.
And this is what Paul is explaining in Romans 9, why God is turning from the Jews who were elect and sending the gospel to the Gentiles. Why? Because the elect Jews would not believe, but the Gentiles did.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
God's election is hardly unconditional, he is rejecting the Jews because they did not believe but sought salvation through works. The Gentiles who were not elect before are now elect because they have believed.
So, I do not accept your view at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do the scriptures show that God knows who will believe and who will not?
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Scripture says Jesus "knew from the beginning who they were that believed not". If Jesus knew who would not believe, then by simple process of elimination he would also know who would believe from the beginning.
You may not like this example of foreknowledge, but God put it in the scriptures.
As far as the nations in Romans 9, just cut out the last verses if you don't like them.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Notice verse 30 starts with "What shall we say then". This is Paul's CONCLUSION to the whole chapter, that the Gentiles who were not elect have attained to righteousness, because they sought it by faith, and the Jews who were elect have not obtained it because they sought righteousness not by faith, but through their own good works.
This is Paul's concluding statement of the whole chapter, take a marker and blot out these verses if you don't like them.
I believe God in heaven knows all things. I believe that at times God appeared in limited form among men, as when he wrestled with Jacob and Jacob prevailed, or when he told Abraham he would go down to Sodom to see if they had done according to the cry that had come to him, and if not he would know.
Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
God appeared to Abraham as a man. He ate food, God in heaven does not need to eat. So God was limited like a man in this particular situation and was not omniscient.
However, at the same moment God was in heaven in his glory and knew everything.
This is what I believe.
- Status