Calvinism/origin of sin 2

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Mar 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    It has been argued that Calvinists do not believe that God is the ultimate or remote cause of sin. Some Arminians argue that Calvinism teaches that God only permits sin.

    Here is Piper and Calvin:


    Free-for-all!
     
    #1 Luke2427, Mar 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2011
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    So Piper admits that God is the author of all sin. That is anathema to God as revealed in the life of Christ ... and the life of Christ is the greatest and fullest revelation we will ever have on God.
     
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    God arranged the Fall. He put the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden, and told Adam and Eve not to eat of it. But God created Adam and Eve with the capacity to choose autonomously. Eve was deceived so her choice was compelled by Satan, but Adam sinned by his choice, he did what he knew was against the will of God. And did not Satan need God's permission to test Adam and Eve.

    So the issue is not that God created the capacity to sin, or that He allows people to sin, but the issue is does God compel our individual choices to sin. A Hype-Calvinist would say yes, being advocates of exhaustive determinism, and a lesser Calvinist would say we make the only choice we can make (compatibillism) and because of the Fall, that means sinful choices. A rose by any other name...
     
    #3 Van, Mar 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2011
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    I agree Adam and Eve sinned through their own choice, their own freewill. But that is not, IMHO, what Piper and staunch Calvinist are saying.

    We are permitted to sin because we do have freewill, not because God wants us to sin. Since Adam and Eve brought sin into the world God has been working to restore the close relationship he had with them before they sinned.
     
    #4 Crabtownboy, Mar 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2011
  5. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    The answer is no. God does not compel anyone to sin ever.

    All who sin do so by their own choice.

    But God intended for the world to be sinful so that he might save and redeem and thereby show his great love.

    Without sin there is no Calvary love.

    Without sin there is no redemption and no song of the redeemed to sing around the throne of God.

    Without sin there is no mercy of God to be displayed and experienced.

    Without sin there is no Lamb receiving the praises of a multitude of the redeemed which no man can number through the endless ages of eternity.

    God hates sin, but sin was necessary that mercy and redeeming grace might be displayed and bestowed and praised and enjoyed forever.

    Who would want God NOT to want these things?
     
  6. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8


    Then you do not know Piper. I can assure you that I do. As a matter of fact I will see him this week in Orlando, Florida.

    Piper most certainly believes that men sin by their own choice and are not compelled to do so against there will by God.
     
  7. Osage Bluestem

    Osage Bluestem
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 9:11-23 ESV
    11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 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, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

    Link: http://www.rmiweb.org/books/authorsin.pdf
     
  8. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Calvinists play word games to hid their doctrine. When they say men sin by their own choice, they leave out that they believe the only choice a fallen man can make is sinful. So what they call "choice" is in fact "non-choice" or "compatibillistic choice."
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    Your quote from Piper says God is the author of sin. I was only quoting him.

    Also, I watched the film clip you posted in the other thread and there Piper says all sins and evil were preordained by God, all wife beatings ... I do not remember the whole list. But it certainly sounded as if he attributes all sin to God in that God preordained the evil.

    As I said in other posts, what kind of father would predestine pain and suffering on his children in order to show how loving he is?

    You say they have a choice, but at the same time you say they were predestined to select wrongly .. so they really had no choice. That can only be the logical conclusion of predestination and/or pre-ordination.

    I can only go by what you quote from him.
     
    #9 Crabtownboy, Mar 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2011
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    If God is holding the domino up, and He lets go of it...how is it the domino's choice not to fall if that is what is going to happen when it is let go?
     
  11. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    Luke said :
    Webdog replied:
    Web, yes, you are correct ... pretty good analogy. To say we have a choice and then to say that God predestined our choice is to make God very duplicitous and I believe that is a huge error.

    Also it seems to me from what I have seen on this board that Luke and Calvinists either do not see the logical conclusion of their belief or are afraid to acknowledge that logical conclusion.

    Getting on toward quitting time over here and I'm off tomorrow playing tourist. Have fun.
     
  12. Osage Bluestem

    Osage Bluestem
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evil is going to be destroyed by God. As it exists now it is just an instructive demonstration to the elect so that they will know the goodness of God.

    So God has decreed that evil exist for awhile because he is glorified in it's destruction and in the edification of his elect.

    The reprobates only exist as tools whose purpose is to maintain an evil world for the training of the elect and to be the objects of God's wrath in his final destruction of evil.
     
  13. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    Totally illogical. God will make us miserable so he can show how merciful and kind he is by removing our misery.

    Do you harm your children so you can show them how wonderful you are in nursing them back to health?

    So God is egotistical and needs us to praise him, in the misery he caused, so he will feel good?

    I think you need to rework this sentence. Train the elect so they can be objects of God's wrath ... hmmm, did you really mean to say that.
     
  14. Osage Bluestem

    Osage Bluestem
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not the same at all. He isn't harming us as our death on earth is only the begining of our sanctified eternity. In contrast he is giving us life. Think of it more as a process through which sanctified eternal life begins.



    No. That is actually a very blasphemous thing to say. God is true to all of his attributes in his sovereignty.

    The meaning of life for an elect person is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. It is right that God be glorified because he deserves it.



    That's not what I said. I said the reprobates purpose is to maintain an evil world through which the elect are shown God's goodness and power. In the end reprobates bear the wrath of God. So God, loves the elect in a special way and hates the reprobates in a special way.
     
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before we go any further I assume this is directed at me and we need to clarify something: I've NEVER ONCE said that I think Calvinists believe that God ONLY permits sin. I've have addressed the quote you provided from Edwards, and I've not limited it to "bare permission." I've acknowledged the "disposing of events" and the certainty of said events coming to pass. The thing I've pressed you on, which you still have failed to address is:

    1. What part does ANY amount of permission play in your view where God is doing the evil act...i.e. "killing his son" ???

    2. What point is there in speaking of God permitting that which he is actively doing?

    3. And finally how is your view consistent with Edward position and the postion of the Arminian divines? Regardless of what Piper/Calvin have said (which we can discuss too), this doesn't negate the inconsistencies you have with Edwards.

    You acknowledged that you affirm the idea of a permissive decree but have yet to tell us one thing that might fall under this decree as apposed to the active decree of God. Can you answer that?
     
  16. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very true, as I've explained before:

    Compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

    This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

    This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).
     
  17. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

    But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips. (Job 2:9-10)

    Job didn't sin in the way he answered his wife, but what about his wife's angry words? Did she sin? If so was that sin decreed before the foundation of the world by God? Or did Job's wife have a choice whether to say good (in support of her husband), or to say evil?
     
  18. Osage Bluestem

    Osage Bluestem
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was decreed from the foundation of the world. Like all sins.

    Here is a good example of that biblical model:

    Acts 4:27-28 NASB
    27“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur
     
  19. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You take away the free will of man which previously was posted by a Calvinist that man had one. What a contradiction!
    This is the typical argument used by Calvinists. I get weary of it.
    We all know (non-Cals and others) that Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Your argument is moot. The sacrifice of Christ, where Christ went willingly to the cross, and, in fact, would let nothing hinder him from going to the cross, has nothing to do with:
    1. What Job's wife said.
    2. A young virgin getting raped against her will.
    3. A young women getting an abortion.
    4. The slaughter of innocent people by Ghaddafi and other such dictators.

    Sin is the result of sinful choices made by sinful men who have a sinful nature that they were born with as a result of the Fall. Don't attribute those things to a monstrous god.
     
  20. MB

    MB
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    13
    Skating so close to the pit of hell can still get you burned.

    What people don't want to admit is that sin comes from with in our flesh. The one who does it, is the sinner. The one who authors it, is the sinner. I believe this is why we are all called sinners. God doesn't allow sin or author it. Which is why He commanded us not to do it. Satan is the ruler of this world for now, but not for long.

    To say God authored sin shows the man who said it is a sinner and in danger of hell fire. I believe statements like that are blaspheme.
    MB
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...