The Tree and Garden

[reformedbeliever]

I know you do, but sure a lot of admonishing for the children that are the "elect".

My health is pretty good now, have blockage in front of heart but they can't put a stint in it. But man, I thank God everyday for what I do have health wise and salvation.

BBob,

Brother, I believe with all my heart that I'm one of the elect. I still need His admonishing daily...... sometimes a double dose.

 

[npetreley]

So, that makes God the author of sin??

BBob,

From Let's Learn Theology ( www.letslearntheology.com ):

Coming To Wrong Conclusions

Beware of the following two erroneous conclusions when pondering God's great plan:

1) God is the author of sin.

This is not true. God including sin in His plan does not make Him the author of it. I know this is hard to comprehend but this is clearly what the Bible teaches. God created men and angels good in the beginning. However, sin rose up in both of these creatures but the Bible simply does not tell us why. Satan and the human heart are the real authors of sin. This is included in God's great plan but in such a way as not to make Him the author of sin.

Link to this specific page...

http://www.letslearntheology.com/content/view/42/26/

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother, I believe with all my heart that I'm one of the elect. I still need His admonishing daily...... sometimes a double dose.

We all do, but not to the point of our destruction.

BBob, raying:

 

[TCGreek]

From Let's Learn Theology (www.letslearntheology.com):

I wish I had written that--that seems to be something I would definitely agree to. Thanks, Npet. :thumbs:

 

[russell55]

russell, feel free to show me where someone stated EMPHATICALLY, DIRECTLY of IMPLICITLY that "THE REASON" God didn't prevent sin is that He wanted humankind to have free choice.

I didn't say the reason was given in this thread. In this thread, no nonCalvinist has given a reason. Nevertheless, I've been having these conversations for 10 years or so, and when pressed for a reason for God to permit sin, human free will is usually the reason given, so I'm not speaking in a vacuum.

The free will philosopher that goes to my home Bible study gives this as the reason.

Ever read C. S. Lewis's Problem of Pain? He, too, gives human free will as the reason for the presence of sin in creation, and if human free will is really the ultimate reason for the presence of sin, the human free will is God's ultimate reason for allowing the presence of sin.

First of all, humanity, before Adam sinned already have volitional capacity so God didn't need to allow sin to establish that reality. It already existed.

If this is the case, then God deciding to create human beings with volitional capacity was also a decision to allow sin.

Secondly, and again, I have yet to read anyone stated the REASON God allowed sin was so mankind could have free choice.

Do you have another ultimate reason God decided to allow sin to enter creation? What would that be?

I have read that because man already had freedom to choose God incorporated that choice to sin as part of the plan to provide redemption for mankind.

But when you boil that statement, it is man's freedom of choice that is the purpose for God's allowing sin. You are simply proving my point.

And God incorporated that choice to sin into his plan? That means that it was human beings who, by their choice to sin, determined what God's plan for creation history would ultimately be.

But what you have said is an extreme departure and very shadowy (at best) representation of the position of the non-Calvinist I have read here so far. I suggest you go back and review their statements on this topic and reconsider your characterization of their position. Your statement simply does not reflect what they have said.

As I said, I've done lots of reading, conversing, etc on this subject over the years. But if you disagree, tell me what is the real reason that God decided to permit Adam to sin, according to nonCalvinists?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Ok, then prove why it is apparent to you that I misrepresent someone or anyone. A quote would be helpful. Again, don't make apparent accusations without having the ability to back them up.

One does not "prove" what is apparent. For someone to be proven it is treated factually. When one uses the word "apparently" that means they are qualifying it as not being treated as a fact but a possibility.

Now, you can ask for me to explain why it is apparent to me as when I said:

Apparently to you God's Sovereignty is so weak that it is threatened by human volition (never mind God created human volition) and His Sovereignty so limited that it cannot incorporate the exercise of human volition in His decree(s).

And you blame Non-Calvinists for a weak position on Divine Sovereignty?

And my answer would be it is apparent to me because of what you said:
Post #12

Lets take this line of reasoning to its final conclusion. Suppose Joseph's brothers would have freely chosen to NOT do the things to Joseph that the Bible speaks of. How about all the other factors that *caused* Joseph to come to the position he came to? Were there free choices in those instances?
In other words.... God has to sit back and hope that men's free choices will result in His plan of action? Lucky God huh?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Since you feel warranted in prescribing to me how you would like me to respond, I recommend you apply that same standard to yourself and quit misrepresenting the stated beliefs of others which is synonymous to your very own complaint, telling someone what they believe.

However, for the record I didn't tell you what you believe I used the qualifier "apparently" which is not conclusive and not emphatic, thus falling short of telling your what you believe.

Where did you use the qualifier "apparently" with me? C'mon Alex...... steady man.

edited to add. I see from the above response to me that you quoted where you did use the word apparently. Thanks for providing the quote.

 

[npetreley]

I didn't say the reason was given in this thread. In this thread, no nonCalvinist has given a reason. Nevertheless, I've been having these conversations for 10 years or so, and when pressed for a reason for God to permit sin, human free will is usually the reason given, so I'm not speaking in a vacuum.

It's even the reason given in movies. Have you ever seen Time Bandits? Someone asks The Supreme Being (God), "Why is there evil?" The actor playing God ponders a moment and then says, "Ah, yes. I think it has something to do with free will."

In other words, even among non-Christians I would wager it is the most commonly presumed answer.

 

[Brother Bob]

From Let's Learn Theology ( www.letslearntheology.com ):



Link to this specific page...

http://www.letslearntheology.com/content/view/42/26/

So, again I will ask you. What you have posted translates to God allowing sin, and remain Sovereign.
Why can't He allow "repentance" and remain Sovereign??

I don't think you are going to answer it, but maybe I have given you something to study on. Thanks,

BBob,

 

[npetreley]

So, again I will ask you. What you have posted translates to God allowing sin, and remain Sovereign.

No, what I've posted translates (actually, no translation is needed) to God planning sin. Even though the created beings, not God, were the ones who sinned, God still remains sovereign because it couldn't have happened any other way. It went exactly according to plan.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I didn't say the reason was given in this thread. In this thread, no nonCalvinist has given a reason. Nevertheless, I've been having these conversations for 10 years or so, and when pressed for a reason for God to permit sin, human free will is usually the reason given, so I'm not speaking in a vacuum.

Ever read C. S. Lewis's Problem of Pain? He, too, gives human free will as the reason for the presence of sin in creation. If human free will is really the ultimate reason for the presence of sin, the human free will is God's ultimate reason for allowing the presence of sin.

I appreciate your clarification speaking to a group of people in a thread and then qualifying statements about what you believe they believe but it does not include them isn't the most effective form of debate or dialogue.

If this is the case, then God deciding to create human beings with volitional capacity was also a decision to allow sin.

Yes God did decide to permit sin to occur via the decision of Adam

Do you have another ultimate reason God decided to allow sin to enter creation? What would that be?

Yes, it is related to the reason for man's creation in the first place as it relates to the Angelic conflict in Angelic history in eternity past. This is of course another thread topic and worth discovering elsewhere and if you wish it can be discussed in another thread.

But when you boil that statement, it is man's freedom of choice that is the purpose for God's allowing sin. You are simply proving my point.

And God incorporated that choice to sin into his plan? That means that it was human beings who, by their choice to sin, determined what God's plan for creation history would ultimately be.

As I said, I've done lots of reading, conversing, etc on this subject over the years. But if you disagree, tell me what is the real reason that God decided to permit Adam to sin, according to nonCalvinists?

I certainly disagree that your point is being proved but you are obviously your own determiner for your own mind what you believe is true or not. As for what non-Calvinist believe I can give you some of what some believe but not all and I can give you all of what I believe.

 

[reformedbeliever]

One does not "prove" what is apparent. For someone to be proven it is treated factually. When one uses the word "apparently" that means they are qualifying it as not being treated as a fact but a possibility.

Now, you can ask for me to explain why it is apparent to me as when I said:



And my answer would be it is apparent to me because of what you said:
Post #12

Keep reading Alex. You will find my response in this thread where I stated that I do in fact believe that God does use our choices to accomplish His purposes. I stated that our choices will always be consistent with God's decreed will. Go back and read Alex.

 

[Jarthur001]

If God directly causes you to sin, it does make him the "author" of sin (at least in the sense that people usually use the expression), but the "sinner" or "wrongdoer" is still you.

Since sin is the transgression of divine law, for God to be a sinner or wrongdoer in this case, he must decree a moral law that forbids himself to be the author of sin, and then when he acts as the author of sin anyway, he becomes a sinner or wrongdoer.

But unless this happens, for God to be the author of sin does not make him a sinner or wrongdoer. The terms "author," "sinner," "wrongdoer," and "tempter" are relatively precise... at least precise enough to be distinguished from one another, and for God to be the "author" of sin says nothing about whether he is also a "sinner," "wrongdoer," or a "tempter." And for one not to be a wrongdoer by definition means that he has not done wrong. Therefore, even if God is the author of sin, it does not automatically follow that there is anything wrong with it, or that he is a wrongdoer.

However, this is not to distance God from evil, for to "author" the sin implies far more control over the sinner and the sin than to merely tempt. Whereas the devil (or a person's (lust) may be the tempter, and the person might be the sinner, it is God who directly and completely controls both the tempter and the sinner, and the relationship between them.

And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil spirits to tempt and to torment. But in all of this, God is righteous by definition.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Where did you use the qualifier "apparently" with me? C'mon Alex...... steady man.

edited to add. I see from the above response to me that you quoted where you did use the word apparently. Thanks for providing the quote.

And with that illumination it is time for a nocturnal meditation and tomorrow will come soon enough.

 

[Brother Bob]

No, what I've posted translates (actually, no translation is needed) to God planning sin. Even though the created beings, not God, were the ones who sinned, God still remains sovereign because it couldn't have happened any other way. It went exactly according to plan.

If God "plans" sin, He is the author of it, and I do not accept that.

BBob,

 

[npetreley]

If God "plans" sin, He is the author of it, and I do not accept that.

BBob,

And that brings us back to this...

Coming To Wrong Conclusions

Beware of the following two erroneous conclusions when pondering God's great plan:

1) God is the author of sin.

This is not true. God including sin in His plan does not make Him the author of it. I know this is hard to comprehend but this is clearly what the Bible teaches. God created men and angels good in the beginning. However, sin rose up in both of these creatures but the Bible simply does not tell us why. Satan and the human heart are the real authors of sin. This is included in God's great plan but in such a way as not to make Him the author of sin.

http://www.letslearntheology.com/content/view/42/26/

 

[reformedbeliever]

And with that illumination it is time for a nocturnal meditation and tomorrow will come soon enough.

The point I was making is that it is apparently "apparent" to you that I do not believe in human volition. I do believe in human volition. I just believe that God's sovereign providence is able to use human volition to accomplish His purposes exactly according to His plan.

 

[Brother Bob]

If God directly causes you to sin, it does make him the "author" of sin (at least in the sense that people usually use the expression), but the "sinner" or "wrongdoer" is still you.

Since sin is the transgression of divine law, for God to be a sinner or wrongdoer in this case, he must decree a moral law that forbids himself to be the author of sin, and then when he acts as the author of sin anyway, he becomes a sinner or wrongdoer.

But unless this happens, for God to be the author of sin does not make him a sinner or wrongdoer. The terms "author," "sinner," "wrongdoer," and "tempter" are relatively precise... at least precise enough to be distinguished from one another, and for God to be the "author" of sin says nothing about whether he is also a "sinner," "wrongdoer," or a "tempter." And for one not to be a wrongdoer by definition means that he has not done wrong. Therefore, even if God is the author of sin, it does not automatically follow that there is anything wrong with it, or that he is a wrongdoer.

However, this is not to distance God from evil, for to "author" the sin implies far more control over the sinner and the sin than to merely tempt. Whereas the devil (or a person's (lust) may be the tempter, and the person might be the sinner, it is God who directly and completely controls both the tempter and the sinner, and the relationship between them.

And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil spirits to tempt and to torment. But in all of this, God is righteous by definition.

Sorry James;
But this is exactly why we split from the Calvinist in 1893, I do not accept that God is the Author of Sin. How could we condemn sin, or how could God condemn sin, if He caused it. There would be no such thing a morality, if God authored the sin we committed. We would be nothing but robots.

BBob,

 

[Jarthur001]

If God "plans" sin, He is the author of it, and I do not accept that.

BBob,

“In days to come, O Gog, I will bring you against my land so that the nations may know me when I show myself holy though you before their eyes.”

In the passage above do you feel Gog will be punished for coming down on the land?

 

[Jarthur001]

Sorry James;
But this is exactly why we split from the Calvinist in 1893, I do not accept that God is the Author of Sin. How could we condemn sin, or how could God condemn sin, if He caused it. There would be no such thing a morality, if God authored the sin we committed. We would be nothing but robots.

BBob,

if you read the post, you will find the use of the phrase to show even if this were the case, it would not make God a sinner. Sin is a path away from God, and if it is Gods will, then how it is sin.


But like most Calvinist on this board I do not see it that way. God is in full control, and yet apart from sin, even though God does use sin and counts on mens lust to bring about His will.