Both a result of real free choices God has given us. No mystery whatsoever.
Even if that were so, the fact remains that we are dead and blind now. So we are incapable as such of making choices until we are made alive.
No mystery there whatsoever.
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!
Both a result of real free choices God has given us. No mystery whatsoever.
You have to remember that Calvinism and Roman Catholicism have a lot in common. Both Luther and Calvin were both Catholics to begin with; they brought a lot of this thinking with them when they left this heretical church.
Infant baptism is one thing they did not break free of.
Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8).
It amazes me how so many today look to these types of people for theological guidance.
For one thing, I am not obsessed with free will. The ability to choose is not the end all be all of the universe. the glory of God is. But I do believe that we do make choices. Unfortunately, I am not much better than you are at explaining how it works. What I am, is convinced that and emphasis on God's glory is far more important than an emphasis on man's free will.
Ok, so when is the molestation of a child ever "not evil?"Wrong. You cannot seem to differentiate in your mind between a deed and evil.
A deed is evil or good only based upon the doer of the deed.
How do you say on the one hand that God does do the deed (lie, murder, molest, etc) but doesn't do evil? Why not just consistently keep saying, He does it ALL but its ALL good because HE does it for the right motive? Murder's are good, lies are good, molestations are good...Why? Because God did them for a good motive. That is what you are saying by concluding that God "does the deed." Historically, Reformers have denied that God "does the deed" but you take a different approach by redefining the deed as being good if the motive is good.God DID will for evil to exist.
You cannot seem to get that that does not mean that he does evil.
Luke, I've explained over and over the difference in God "decretive decree" and his "permissive decree" and when I attempted to get you to acknowledge that you said, "The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE." "God does not just allow these things" -LukeYet, on the one hand you affirm that God ordained all that comes to pass. That God has a purpose for every single thing that happens in this universe. While on the other hand you contradict yourself saying that God did not will (or purpose) for evil to exist. This is horrible logic.
This method of biblical proof texting is tantamount to me quoting something like, "...and Judas went out and hung himself..." "...go and do likewise..." "...what thou doeth, doeth quickly...." It is absurd. You must know the circumstances of the passage and the issue being addressed by the author in his historical context.Here we go again. It's the same old tired argument that Paul addressed two thousand years ago. "Why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?"
The answers are in the Scriptures, it's simply that Scandal et al don't believe them.
Ok, so when is the molestation of a child ever "not evil?"
First of all, what text were we discussing in which I said that it was not present?Luke, I've explained over and over the difference in God "decretive decree" and his "permissive decree" and when I attempted to get you to acknowledge that you said, "The word "allow" and the IDEA of allowance is not in the text ANYWHERE." "God does not just allow these things" -Luke
And I have always acknowledged that you don't believe 'God does evil' by also quoting your qualifications regarding God's motive in 'doing a deed." But what you fail to understand is that I believe a deed in itself can be inherently evil (a lie is a lie, molestation is evil, etc) and the 'evilness' of a deed is not always determined by the motive of the doer. Thus, it MAY appear to you that I'm saying that you believe God does evil, when really what I'm attempting to argue is that the deed you are saying God does IS ITSELF INHERENTLY EVIL SO STOP SAYING HE DID IT!!!! See the difference?
Just for the record Luke2427 and FWIW, I left the Church of Rome partially (and a large part at that) because of my perceived error on their part concerning the ordinances or what they call "the sacraments".
I found that most of the churches of the Reformation tried a nominal doctrinal correction but none really went the full route.
Upon researching the teachings and resultant church entities associated with Calvin (The Institutes) and company, as well as Luther were still trying to "reform" the church and IMO appeared to be somewhat ambivalent about the "sacraments" their meaning, necessity and pupose.
Consequently this weakness led me to other alternatives.
For that reason I departed from them as well and chose the Baptist distinctives as this difference was IMO foundational Scripture truth.
However finding this error in so foundational truth as the meaning and purpose of the ordinances I felt their other teachings were at least suspect.
HankD
Luke, if you go back to our original discussion we were talking about the origin of evil and God's decree of whatsoever comes to pass, remember?What we call child molestation is that which evil men do with evil intentions.
Child molestation is always evil because those who do it are evil and do it with evil intentions.
That presumes two things. (1) God doesn't do the deed, which you have claimed that ultimately he does all deeds (see quotes above) and (2) the motive originated with the person and not God, something else you system rejects as a possibility given that it would require God is informed by something he didn't himself originate.Child molestation is always evil because it, by defintion, consists of an evil person with an evil motive.
We were discussing Edwards quote and the argument over the origin of evil. I don't believe any specific text was in question. You've always rejected the idea of God's permitting of evil unless it was accompanied by his determining it as well.First of all, what text were we discussing in which I said that it was not present?
I'm getting tired of you calling me a liar when I quote you verbatim, including your convoluted qualifications of 'evil deeds' not being 'evil' when God does them for the right motive. As I explained to you already, it MAY appear to you that I'm saying that you believe God does evil, when really what I'm attempting to argue is that the deed you are saying God does IS ITSELF INHERENTLY EVIL. There is a difference, Luke. If I believe lying is inherently evil and you believe God does the deed of lying then I am going to argue that you are making God do evil, even though you don't believe lying is evil if done in the right motive. If you can't follow that, blame yourself because you have created this convoluted mess with all your misstatements.Thirdly, what you have done is bald faced lied about what I meant by "IT".
If you can prove my motive is evil then I will, otherwise my deeds are pure. :smilewinkgrin:You are under moral and ethical obligation to withdraw those remarks of yours and apologize to me publicly.
Now Im not trying to be rude here to you Hank, I do respect your opinion ....but arent you saying your individual propensity is to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
So?
Going to church is another practice that they did not BREAK FREE from/
Feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and housing the displaced and visiting the prisons are also Catholic Church practices the Reformers did not BREAK FREE from.
So what?
What kind of argument is it that says, "Well, the Reformers did not break free from every single Roman Catholic practice and therefore they are not fit to follow."?
And just for the record- your 15th century religious moorings are almost CERTAINLY Protestant.
I bet if you traced the church of which you are a member through history, you'd find that it spawns from Protestantism.
Your church, this is conjecture, is probably IFB. The IFB of which you are a part PROBABLY broke off from the SBC years ago. The SBC branches of from Protestant roots and the SBC to this day claims to be the largest PROTESTANT denomination in the world.
So, like it or not, your religious roots are probably Protestant.
This is so typical claiming everyone has descended from the Catholic church. There has always been members of the body of Christ. It is they the RCC who got it's start from us in 325 ad. The romans couldn't kill enough of us so they put on a charade as if they were joining us then started making such bogus claims of being the first church. Nothing but lies come from the Catholic Church. Secular history has proven them wrong time after time. I knew this to be true by the time I left the 5 th grade.
MB
IMO, temptation in this system is like offering a lion the choice between a steak or a salad. He is going to eat the steak because that is what he wants and more importantly that is how he was created...it is his instinct. The 'choice' when tempted is virtually the same for a man in the compatibilistic system. In this system, the man's God given nature determines his desire which determine his choices so he does what 'he wants' just like the Lion. There is no real basis on which to place human culpability in this kind of system. Most of humanity would be better off as animals because at least they wouldn't spend an eternity in hell for their inborn instinctive reactions to the preordained stimuli.
Referring to your above "how he was created...it is his instinct", I was just wondering if God, who does not change, but does change things to bring about His will, would change, or bolster your position. I believe Genesis 1 and 9, will show us that God changed the diet of certain animals, and man.
Thanks for contemplating. I evidently worded poorly. This was meant to be rhetorical as your assumption there was no change from the beginning. As a change was made from the beginning, I was just wondering as you had not taken into consideration that a change had been made; hence my query of would this change, or bolster you position.I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I believe God could intervene to change men's instinctive desires in order to bring about his purpose? Maybe you could expound?
Luke, if you go back to our original discussion we were talking about the origin of evil and God's decree of whatsoever comes to pass, remember?
I appealed to J. Dahmer's henious crimes as something God would never cause/do/desire, though clearly he permitted them, remember?
Your rebuttal was to appeal to the crucifixion as even a worse evil than the sins of Dahmer. You concluded, "The crucifixion of the Son of God is a far worse sin and the thought originated in eternity past in the secret council halls of the infinite and holy wisdom of God. Since there is nothing that ever happens apart from God's ordering of events so that it will come to pass, and since we understand the Word of God teaches that the worst sin ever committed was determined in eternity past by God- it should be no problem for you to see that God has determined all things including those far lesser evils committed by Dahmer.
God kills and God makes alive. Did Dahmer kill those people? Yes. Did God kill them? God's own testimony: "I kill and I make alive."- Luke
Now, what is the difference if we replace the word "kill" with the word "molest," Luke?
This is what lead to the whole "God does the deed, but it's not evil" discourse. Yet, now you are saying God doesn't do the 'deed' in the case of molestation, but he did do the deed in the case of murder? What's the difference in a system where he "determines whatsoever comes to pass?"
That presumes two things. (1) God doesn't do the deed, which you have claimed that ultimately he does all deeds (see quotes above) and (2) the motive originated with the person and not God, something else you system rejects as a possibility given that it would require God is informed by something he didn't himself originate.
The difference is the word kill is amoral. It can be good or bad based on motive. Molest includes motive.