Calvinism and Free Will

Well...

Some would ban piper...I'm sure.

 

It really does depend on what you mean by "author". Sin isn't a "thing" one can create. I don't know if the person who wrote that was oversimplifying for the sake of his audience, or what. But I did find it amusing that he said it so simply on a site called "Let's Learn Theology", and it was funny to find it there after I made the comment about theological diapers.

 

God made Adam able to sin, but did not cause him to sin. Adam sinned by his own free will. If we think of a "will" as a separate intity, then any "will" that exists is in conflict with God's will by virue of the fact that it exists and for no other reason.

There's no escaping the conclusion that if God is the all-kowning, all-powerful Being that the Bible describes Him as, then evil and its attending sin must have come about by design. So I conclude further that God created Satan able to sin, but did not cause him to sin, but knowing that in due time he would sin. Same for Adam.

I don't know if that makes God the "Author" of sin or not. Someone said that Author means "efficient cause". Well, I don't understand that term either. For me, it's this simple: God created them ABLE to sin, but did not CAUSE them to sin, although he INTENDED for them to sin in order to necessitate redemption, but He Himslef is incapable of sin. They tell me that this is the classic superlapsarian view. I think the sub/infra view is that God did not INTEND for sin to happen, but KNEW that it would, and therefore decreed redemption.

Either view, super or infra, offeres a Biblically viable view of the origin of sin, but the the Pelagian/Arminian/Open view says that sin just sorta "happened" by chance or whatever but not by design.

 

I like that. I think it covers it pretty well. Maybe I'd add that it's all for His glory.

 

Ah yes, that wonderful telos, the ultimate purpose and end - Soli Deo Gloria!

 

When you can (and do) appropriately respond to my post regarding its content and its context instead of YOUR DODGING it, then we can move forward. You made allegations and failing to demonstrate proof of them only belies your claim of honest interest in debate. So for the third time I respond to your initial charges and maybe you will grasp the content and context of my response:

 

Of whom where you speaking in this post?

I am only one of 3 or 4 significant respondents in this thread challenging the error of Calvinism and you used the PLURAL "them". So either you were or were not including me. So tell me, where you including me? If so, then why even ask the question where you addressed me when it is true YOU were intending on including me in the accusation of dodging.?

You do understand this is a game you are playing common with many people. You are denying the obvious and the clearly implied because you did not directly and emphatically state something. This is what children do with parents. At least be frank about your intentions when you say something, particularly when it includes UNDERSTOOD communication.

 

A first step.:thumbs:

 

Two notes:

You are correct that God did not cause them to sin and they were created able to sin. But the adjustment from the position addressing the cause of sin in human history (the negative exercise of Adam's volition toward God) to the motive of the decree by God to permit sin errs is cause for issue.

Never minding the lack of transitional cause for the change in categorical considerations I have yet to find any discovery or presentation of apologetical or exegetical argument forwarding that God INTENDED sin to happen (which is a description of an efficacious cause of sin and not a permissive).

The intent of sin was on Adam's part. The permission of its occurrence was God's in his Sovereign decree. God did indeed use the negative intent of Adam and incorporate it into His plan for mankind's redemption but ascribing an INTENT to God for SIN to enter into the world again places God as the cause or the one that desired sin (again it makes it an efficacious cause and not a permissive one).

God intended for Adam to exercise His volition and God intended to use both the positive and negative volitional exercises of Adam to accomplish His will, which does include Adam's choice to sin.

Second note:

You seem to be (correct me if what I perceive is wrong) to be under the impression that if one is not Calvinist they are left with only 3 theological options regarding the construct of the Decree(s) of God, Pelagian/Arminian/Open. If this is true allow me to encourage you to avoid labels that debilitate people theologically and apologetically. There are an extensive number of views apart from these mere 3, none of which are even properly consider modifications of the 3 (for those tempted to such reductionist labeling). At best one can refer to them as non-Calvinist views but then even among Calvinists there is argument concerning the order of decrees.

 

JD,

I think you are beginning to realize that, as an "independent agency," angels and man were permitted to do many things most of which would be within the will of God without being directed or decreed by Him, right?

It is absolutely splendid when the wills coincide and God recognizes us trying to do His will. Like Cornelius, the "God-fearer," He will even hear and answer our prayers! He rewards them that diligently, though still independently, seek Him even before they are saved.

But it is also just as obvious that an independent agency can pursue its own will apart from God's will.

Calvinists merely reject the independent aspect of man's will, isn't that so? Whom a man serves, he is his master, but he can serve 2 masters for quite some time, right? "Either he will hate the one and ..." Then he will choose. And maybe yet another "master" will appear and the whole process recurs. Basically, you can't choose to be eternally lost like you can choose to be eternally saved. God can always reclaim the lost sinner but Satan can never reclaim the saved Christian. How's that for independent?!

skypair

 

my dear Q,

As all can clearly see I have done as you asked.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1129017&postcount=274

Now it was not my goal to do so, for I had not addressed you. But being that you thought it was you...i spent the time and posted where YOU never address what was asked by others.

Again......no need to say I'm sorry...for it is clear you were wrong.

hey..tell you what...don't even address those now. Just be a man of your word and answer.

I now ask for the 5th time which alone proves my point.

So either have the integrity to provide a answer, or you prove once again to dodge the the subject and act like a kid. The alleged dodges are clear FACTS for this is the 5th page I alone have asked and you want to play games. Have you no courage to make a stand for your faith, or are you just walking fast with a big clip board?

Time to put up or shut-up my dear Q

 

Wow! Four consecutive posts on the previous page and none of them answered your questions?

You see, this is what I like about putting folks like this on ignore. None of the hot gas, and I still get 100% of the useful information I used to get.

 

Hello Q man.....

This was address to another, but being that we keep missing each other..I thought I would try to pipe in.

Why did God make man able to sin? If God did not want man to sin, did he not have the power to make him not sin? In fact, do we not see in the Bible God stepping in to stop some men from sinning? Why did he not stop Adam? Why make Adam able to sin?

stick around.

I do not disagree with this statement in the 1st part. This I call the "arena of play" in Gods sovereign decree. However you make a major jump near the middle and it would seem to be based on your feeling. You have no backing to make such a jump. I on the other hand will take the arena of play, and see in it Gods plan from start to finish.

Again...nothing wrong here. It would seem like you just have a problem of taking the full step into Gods decreeing power. I however do not.

Not addressed to me.....but yes I do.

God elects based on grace alone....
or..
God elects based on something man does.

No middle ground there.

give us one..and we can talk about it.

 

That's the least of Adam's worries. Not only was he ABLE to sin, the deck was heavily stacked in favor of Adam succumbing to temptation. Not only did God plant the forbidden tree in the garden, He planted it in the MIDST (the middle) of the garden where Adam and Eve would see it all the time.

Then there's that nasty detail about how God allowed satan into the garden. Can anyone honestly imagine God slapping His proverbial forehead and saying, "What was I thinking?!?" No, satan was allowed in for a reason.

I can see how this last part was totally necessary, otherwise Adam and Eve could not be innocent. But think about how much Adam and Eve were at a disadvantage because they didn't know good and evil. All things being equal, Adam would have been a lot better off not EVER knowing good and evil. But all things were NOT equal. The serpent was allowed into the garden while Adam and Eve were deliberately unarmed, i.e., no Evil Detection System.

Or, put another way, "Do we have something about which to boast, or not?"

 

*This post you alleged is documentation are unqualified quotes (see below the post you claim is you doing as I asked). The author's are not cited nor are the respondents. No, you have done little more than use the quote tool minus the actual authors and the authors of the responses. When you are able to accomplish that much (I realize detail is bewildering to some but steady yourself and you can over come this) then we can move forward.

In the meantime, your list of questions not only were answered in more than one way but have been answered by more than one person in this thread long before you listed them. I realize that escapes you but it might be why you keep imagining that they haven't been answered when they are homework done two days ago. You're not just late but you failed to pay attention.

Here is what I challenged you with:

Here is what you imagine is fulfilling that:

There is nothing detailed and nothing thorough, just lazy and careless quotes. Time to move on from this particular point though, I have made it and demonstrated your incapacitation here.

 

You are asking a question already addressed in this thread, more than once. Please pay closer attention to go back and read the thread to avoid this problem of repetitive questions.

Ah yes, the doctrine of the "arena of play". :laugh:

Well your school of self-inflicting theological injury isn't surprising but your eagerness to embrace such truncating handicaps will certainly keep you in your current mode of limited, if not completely absent, discovery.

 

And the game goes on and on and on. sad.


6th time i have asked...

will you dodge again? This is a hoot. With each post you prove my point. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

No doubt he's waiting for the thread to be closed so he'll have an excuse not to answer. [Moderator Warning: This post has been edited for its violation of BB Posting Rules 3 and 4. It failed to show grace to fellow posters and engaged in name calling and personal attack.]

 

I see i speak over your head.

Arena of play...let me help you understand

Dr Ware and Dr winter calls this full spectrum of Gods sovereign

John Murray says..Gods sovereign sphere

Pink calls it the conciliation of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

There are a half a dozen phrases you could use. All mean the same. Let me know if you need more help.

 

Indeed you are right. I have seen it all before. but no one can read this thread and not see this.

THEY WILL NOT ANSWER

the end