It "pleased" God that man sinned?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, May 10, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646), which is the "Standard Creed" for the majority of Calvinists, has this on the "fall of man"

    " Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own gloryW
    (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=westminster_conf_of_faith.html)

    Can anyone show me from Scripture, where it says that God was in any way "pleased" with the sin of Adam and Eve?

    I have before me the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1969 ed.), where I have looked up the meanings of "pleased"

    "Affected by feelings of satisfaction or pleasure; contended, gratified" (Vol. II, p.1522)

    This meaning is from the Middle Ages, which would be the time of the writing of this confession.

    Clearly the language shows that the this Confession does not represent what the Bible has to say on this very important doctrine, - the fall of man.

    We read in Genesis 6:6 that sin (including the fall", "grieved Him at His heart". Completely the opposite to what we read in this "Confession", which is suposed to be based on the Bible. Yet another distortion of the Truth as taught in Scripture.

    I am bound to be accused by Calvinists of not really understanding Calvinism. This is their usual line now, espacially when they don't have an answer to something. [​IMG]
     
  2. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't say He was pleased with their sin. It says He was pleased to permit it. How else could He show His glorious grace and mercy but by permitting their sin? See Isaiah 53:10 for similar use of the word.
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't say He was pleased with their sin. It says He was pleased to permit it. How else could He show His glorious grace and mercy but by permitting their sin? See Isaiah 53:10 for similar use of the word. </font>[/QUOTE]Pleased to permit. That means that God took pleasure in the fall of man, which equates to Him having pleasure in their sin. Why would God be "pleased" even to "allow" than man should sin against Him?

    Your example form Isaiah does not allow for the use of "pleased" in the Confessions. Although the KJV uses "pleased", and "pleasure". Both the Hebrew words, "chaphets" and "chephets", give the meaning to "will, willing". This would correspond to the "permit" in the Confession, but there is no justification for God being " pleased to permit" the fall. It is completely foreign to the character of a Holy and Just God
     
  4. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are grasping at straws here. This is one definition of "chaphets" that I found:

    "A primitive root; properly to incline to; by implication (literally but rarely) to bend; figuratively to be pleased with, desire: - X any at all, (have, take) delight, desire, favour, like, move, be (well) pleased, have pleasure, will, would."

    Here's another one:

    "BDB Definition:
    1) to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
    1a) (Qal)
    1a1) of men
    1a1a) to take pleasure in, delight in
    1a1b) to delight, desire, be pleased to do
    1a2) of God
    1a2a) to delight in, have pleasure in
    1a2b) to be pleased to do
    2) to move, bend down
    2a) (Qal) to bend down
    Part of Speech: verb"

    These definitions disagree with yours. The WCF and the KJV are from similar periods, and the uses are similar.
     
  5. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. And the framers of the WCF would have been using the KJV or similar version. They would have based the wording of the confession on their translation, and on the way the word was used in their experience.

    And they would have understood that that didn't mean that God was doing the "happy dance" over man's sin, anymore than he was doing the "happy dance" over Christ's death, but that it was his will to permit sin--that he chose (or desired) to permit it for his own purposes--in the same way that it was his will (or his pleasure) for Christ to die.

    This is, BTW, a legitimate way to use the word please: to seem right to one; to be one's will

    [ May 10, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]
     
  6. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    this is a rather humorous thread. how anyone could derive that God is 'pleased' by sin based on the quasi-Shakespearian wording of that confession is beyond me. It was by my pleasing that I left this post, but it sure didn't please me that much.
     
  7. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. And the framers of the WCF would have been using the KJV or similar version. They would have based the wording of the confession on their translation, and on the way the word was used in their experience.

    And they would have understood that that didn't mean that God was doing the "happy dance" over man's sin, anymore than he was doing the "happy dance" over Christ's death, but that it was his will to permit sin--that he chose (or desired) to permit it for his own purposes--in the same way that it was his will (or his pleasure) for Christ to die.

    This is, BTW, a legitimate way to use the word please: to seem right to one; to be one's will
    </font>[/QUOTE]I know exactly about the usage of the terms. But, this is my point. Even though God no doubt has "allowed" sin in the world, you cannot say as you do, that He "willed" it, or, as you also say, "He chose (or desired)" the fall of man. While I will grant that the word "pleased" in Middle English did have the meaning "will", as it probably does today, yet is was never used to denote "allowed". I gather from the tenor of the Westminster Confession, that they had in mind what you have suggested. This I believe to be sgainst the teaching of Scripture. Why would God "desire" the fall of man, and then when it happens, Scripture says that "it grieved Him"? Does this make any sense? If something that takes palce is in accordance tio your "good pleasure", then why should this offend you? The Calvinistic doctrine of the fall of man has not its basis in the Word of God.
     
  8. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whetstone, it would help if you knew what you were talking about. But, you give the normal Calvinistic response that is hollow.
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    A perfect Arminian answer.

    (Is it any wonder that Calvinist use Arminian methods of Evangelism when they are stuck with an Arminian Bible and have to give Arminian answers to hard questions?).

    God does not CAUSE Adam to "choose against his nature" God "PERMITS the choice"!!

    What a perfect - Arminian solution to the problem.

    God foreknows the choice and sees the choice that sinless Adam will make "against Adam's own sinless nature". God CAN "stop it" before it happens -- but CHOOSES to allow it.

    How is it that ALLOWING free will for Adam (at such geat cost to God in the life of His Son and the suffering of humanity) - is "VALUED" so highly by God that He would PERMIT the choice (not CAUSE the choice) - is the ultimate argument for FREE WILL and the Arminian model!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. johnp.

    johnp.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Merriam Webster has grieve: 4 obsolete a : PROVOKE, ANGER, ENRAGE... which is a bit previous because we still use the word in this way. Getting grief off a person usually means provocation.

    I believe that God does not allow man to make a choice but works all things according to His will. He permits nothing but causes all that comes to pass to come to pass.

    If Adam had a choice then he would have been sovereign in that choice and that is not possible because God is Sovereign.
    EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...

    johnp.
     
  11. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that God does not allow man to make a choice but works all things according to His will. He permits nothing but causes all that comes to pass to come to pass.

    If Adam had a choice then he would have been sovereign in that choice and that is not possible because God is Sovereign.
    EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...

    johnp.
    </font>[/QUOTE]John, your understanding would make God the author of sin. If Adam had no choice in what he did, then he did what God wanted him to do. This is directly against what the Bible records on the fall. If you read in Genesis chapter 3, you will see that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit, and said that if they did, they would surely die. the devil on the other hand, enticed them to disobey God, and contradicted what God had said, saying they would not die. If their actions were not based on their own free choice, then what they did in disobeying God, was in fact what God wanted them to do in the first place. This whole teaching of Calvinism of God being the "cause" of all things that come to pass, is NOT what Scripture teaches. And, regardless of your arguing against it, does make God the author of sin.

    To say that God did not "permit" the fall, but actually "caused" it, is in my view blasphemy.
     
  12. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    You misquote me. I said God chose (or desired) to allow the fall of man, and so does the WCF. You are leaving off something important.


    God desired (or willed) to permit the fall. Once again, you are leaving out important words. They are there in the confession. Don't twist what it is saying.

    Sin always grieves God. Even when God decided to permit it, knowing full well what was sure to happen, he knew that when it happend the sin itself would grieve him.

    God had a good reason for permitting sin, and so he willed to permit it, despite knowing that it would grieve him. Just like he desired (or willed) for Christ to die, knowing full well that it would grieve him when it happened.

    Because the term "good pleasure" isn't being used to mean "something that makes one really, really, happy," but "something one has chosen for good reason". Someone can choose to allow something for good reason without being happy when it happens.

    Well, yes it does. Ephesians 1:11, for instance, says that God "works all things according to the counsel of his will." It seems to me that the fall would be included as one of the "all things" in the "counsel of his will".

    So now that I've responded to what you posted to me, may I ask you some questions? Let me quote your response to me again, with two changes in brackets to reflect more accurately what I wrote, and also what is written in the WCF.

    Okay, if we can't say that God willed to allow sin, does that mean he was unwilling to allow it? There are really only two alternatives in this: God chose or willed to allow win, or he allowed it unwillingly. Which one do you agree with?
     
  13. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Russell, you are using words here without understanding what they really mean.

    Its one thing to say that God "allowed" the fall of man, and sin entering the world. But, to say that He "willed" or "desired" it, is another matter. This is where I have the problem.

    Its all down to the "freedom of the will" in man that God placed within man when He created him. There are many questions that us humans simply do not have the answers for. One of them, is the origin of sin. I will not be content with language that says that God "willed" the fall, for Scripture simply is against any such teaching. He did not prevent the fall, but this cannot be taken to mean that He "desired" it, which the term "willed" teaches. How can God "will" something, then then see it as wrong? We have to be very careful in oue choice of words, especially when it is used for the Lord.

    I don't think that you can take Ephesians 1:11 to include the fall of man. When God finished the Creation of the world, He said "it is good". But, since the fall of man, His Creation has become marred with sin, something He did not "desire" for man. Herein lies a great mystery, and I for one will not try to conprehend the workings of the Mind of God.
     
  14. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think I'm the one whose doing that. You are putting meanings in words that they don't (or didn't) necessarily have. If you want to understand a document like the WCF, you need to put it in its context--historical and otherwise--and understand what was the framer's intended meanings of the words they used.

    Once again, and all throughout your post, you are dropping the word "permit" or "allow" when speaking of the Calvinist or WCF position on this. The concept is that God willed or desired to permit sin to enter the world.

    And you did not answer my question: Did God permit the fall willingly or unwillingly?

    And did he will not to prevent it?
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So "all" doesn't really mean "all"??? That seems very convenient.

    It is clear that you don't understand the WCF, nor the basic doctrines that are being discussed.
     
  16. johnp.

    johnp.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello icthus.
    I see no problem with this. The other way, trying to keep God once seperate from the cause of the sin reduces God and He is not Sovereign if Adam made the choice from his own free will.
    Of course. It is the same for the rest of us. We are all under the direct control of God. There are a lot of people in the Church that believe they can say no to God but it is God that says it!
    Of course. He wanted to reveal His glory and the cross reveals God's glory completely, how could He do so without a fall? Why then do we feel as if God gets His hands dirty in achieving the cross if at the same time He causes it? He is not bound by the law we are bound with.
    If we have an order to the things of God then revealing His glory must have come first. Adam had no chance. The angels had no chance but God prevented some from falling. 1TI 5:21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels...
    He elected some not to fall! :cool:
    Is that what Calvinism teaches? It is not what the Calvinists teach is it? They would have God allowing and permitting others to have sovereignty and that is unacceptable to scripture.
    (Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion. Sproul http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html )
    I'm probably considered hyper if my brothers are feeling generous.
    Yes I get that a lot. :cool: To rob God of His Sovereignty is surely blasphemy. :cool: 1-1.
    I do not argue against it do I? God is the Author sin. I can hold this position I think. I would like to know why we think He cannot do as He pleases to be honest with you. What's the point in being God if you can't do as you please! :cool:

    Whatcha think of below?
    Merriam Webster has grieve: 4 obsolete a : PROVOKE, ANGER, ENRAGE... which is a bit too soon because we still use the word in England this way. Getting grief off a person can mean provocation and a punch on the nose.
    It is unanswered by you.
    THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646), which is the "Standard Creed" for the majority of Calvinists, has this on the "fall of man"
    Creeds are not scripture. Scripture alone is the place of argument if you want to discuss anything with Calvinists. I belong to a Baptist Church and they hold to the WFC. They are not Protestants.
    Creeds are just shorthand and are not meant to be complete but I disagree with the WCF here. I see it as a cop out.

    What do you think?

    Why not? What have you got? Did it come as a surprise to God that Adam sinned?
    This is better.
    EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...
    That's why we can trust Him. We know for a certainty that nothing happens to us unless the Lord causes it to happen in conformity to the purpose of His will. Job knew that. It didn't bother him to know that it was God at work not Satan.

    john.
     
  17. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus,

    I am still waiting for an answer to my question:
     
  18. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'll venture a guess that men have been debating on this very topic for close to 6,000.
     
  19. johnp.

    johnp.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well maybe they have Dan but it is time to reach a conclusion.
    I have answered but just in case it was missed He was more than willing that Adam should fall.

    john.
     

Share This Page

Loading...