1. 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!

The reason God cannot sin

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    You are not reading my posts thoroughly at all.

    I did not say that you claimed that Edwards agrees with Arminianism as a whole.

    I said that you claim that Edwards agrees with Arminianism on the issue of original sin when he clearly does not.

    What you CANNOT seem to see is that he, for about the third time, acknowledges that Arminian divines got it right on a particular ASPECT of original sin.

    Not ONLY does Edwards not agree with Arminianism as a whole (I never said that you said he did) but he does not agree with Arminianism concerning original sin as a whole (iow, on the whole of the doctrine of original sin).

    Please be more thorough in reading my posts. We are only able to respond a few times over the spread of many hours and when I have to clarify just because you did not read the post thoroughly it makes this process quite tedious.

    See, you don't read thoroughly. I NEVER said that God sins. Are you doing this on purpose or are you that distracted??

    God kills men but it is not murder.
    God takes from men but it is not stealing.
    God batters men but it is not abuse.

    God often employs the evil hearts of wicked men to do his bidding but God's power, plan and purpose are at the back of every deed ever done.
    Men who do those deeds do them with an evil heart and with evil motives. God who planned and empowers those deeds does them with a pure heart and the highest and holiest of motives.

    You continue to misrepresent me. THEY ARE NOT SIN IF GOD DOES IT. It IS NOT POSSIBLE.

    Reread the above comments for further clarification.

    God cannot be informed of anything. I actually find it shocking that you would purport such a notion.

    Will you really?

    You presented this same challenge to jarthur in another thread and he presented you with about a dozen. Did you withdraw your challenge or acknowledge that it had more than sufficiently been met.

    If you will commit to do this I will present you with numerous scholars. However, Edwards is one of them and you do not seem to be able to see it.
     
  2. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    You are not reading my posts thoroughly at all.

    I did not say that you claimed that Edwards agrees with Arminianism as a whole.

    I said that you claim that Edwards agrees with Arminianism on the issue of original sin when he clearly does not.

    What you CANNOT seem to see is that he, for about the third time, acknowledges that Arminian divines got it right on a particular ASPECT of original sin.

    Not ONLY does Edwards not agree with Arminianism as a whole (I never said that you said he did) but he does not agree with Arminianism concerning original sin as a whole (iow, on the whole of the doctrine of original sin).

    Please be more thorough in reading my posts. We are only able to respond a few times over the spread of many hours and when I have to clarify just because you did not read the post thoroughly it makes this process quite tedious.

    See, you don't read thoroughly. I NEVER said that God sins. Are you doing this on purpose or are you that distracted??

    God kills men but it is not murder.
    God takes from men but it is not stealing.
    God batters men but it is not abuse.

    God often employs the evil hearts of wicked men to do his bidding but God's power, plan and purpose are at the back of every deed ever done.
    Men who do those deeds do them with an evil heart and with evil motives. God who planned and empowers those deeds does them with a pure heart and the highest and holiest of motives.

    You continue to misrepresent me. THEY ARE NOT SIN IF GOD DOES IT. It IS NOT POSSIBLE.

    Reread the above comments for further clarification.

    God cannot be informed of anything. I actually find it shocking that you would purport such a notion.

    Will you really?

    You presented this same challenge to jarthur in another thread and he presented you with about a dozen. Did you withdraw your challenge or acknowledge that it had more than sufficiently been met.

    If you will commit to do this I will present you with numerous scholars. However, Edwards is one of them and you do not seem to be able to see it.

    and...

    Note that this is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along and that it contradicts this notion of yours that Edwards purports that God is NOT the ultimate cause of evil.

    Note that I have NEVER said that God is the DOER of sin. I have repeatedly denied the notion saying that God CANNOT sin because sin is about motive and God's motives for all that he ever does can only ever be pure.

    God is NEVER the actor or doer of a wicked deed- yet he is doing the killing of Christ as much as Herod and the Romans are. It was HIS plan. It is carried out by HIS power. HE HATES the DEED in itself but wills and empowers it to come to pass using the wicked hands of evil men. They do it for an immediate purpose- God empowers it by their hands, raises them up to do it by utilizing their evil hearts, gives their muscles and sinew the strength to carry it out, does not restrain their evil passions, and though they be free in a real sense, moves them as pawns in another real sense... for an ULTIMATE purpose which is high and holy.

    This describes all events that ever take place.

    Now you will be tempted to bring up Dahmer again. Do not bother. He has never done ANYTHING that could boast of an infinitesimal percentage of the evil that was done at Calvary. If God willed that that, the greatest evil, come to pass- then there is NO sense whatsoever to argue that any infinitely less evil deed would not be ordained and decreed by God in the same way.
     
    #62 Luke2427, Feb 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 26, 2011
  3. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Luke, this idea that motive determines what is right and wrong is error. Telling a lie is wrong, regardless of your motive. That this is true is shown by Jesus himself in Luke 8:55

    Luke 8:55 Yet ye have not known him: and IF I should say, I know him not, I SHALL BE A LIAR LIKE UNTO YOU: but I know him, and keep his saying.

    Jesus cannot say whatever he pleases and his motive would make it right. If he were to deny that he knows the Father it would be a lie regardless of the motive. This doctrine of yours is unscriptural.
     
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wrong again. The ORIGIN OF SIN, not the doctrine of original sin. (even so I'm not sure there is much disagreement on either of those items.)

    Origin of sin, but anyway...that is the particular ASPECT we are debating Luke, remember? We agree with Edwards, and you say more than Edwards, period. You are wrong. Just admit it and move on.

    Luke, your problem is that you change your terms and rework your statements with every post.

    See, look what you have said above. You first say something like God batters men but it is not abuse...which is equal to what you have said before: God sins but it is not sin or to put it the way you might prefer: God does the deed (which would be sin if man did it) but its not sin because God does it with the right motive.

    Then you say, "God who planned and empowers those deeds does them with a pure heart and the highest and holiest of motives.

    See the shift? In one statement you have God doing the deed and in the other you have God planning and empowering the deed. Now, if you mean "planning and empowering" in the way Edwards defined, then fine, but who knows what you mean...its like the weather it seems to change at every turn.


    What else can possibly be meant by "permitting or allowing?" If God is NOT informed by the origin of of Dahmer's intent then He must of originated that intent...so which is it?

    Either God originates it or he is informed of it (foreknows it will certainly come to pass given the events etc) and permits it. Which one?



    That thread closed immediately after his post and we started a new one. The quotes said exactly what I knew they would say and they actually proved my point, which was that Rom 1 was about what WOULD happen to all men without God's grace, not about what has happened to all man without qualification, thus our point of disagreement is really about the effectuality of that grace, not whether this is about all men or not.

    Show me the Edwards quote that says God does/creates/originates the deed (that would be evil/sin if it wasn't God) but it is not evil because His motives are right. Waiting.
     
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Do I need to provide the definition of decree again?

    The decrees of God are (1) efficacious, as they respect those events he has determined to bring about by his own immediate agency; or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect.

    Now, we all know that the redemption of man through the death of Christ would fit under #1 as being something "efficacious." (note: however, that even the sins or evil intents of man were not 'of God's doing' in this case either, but were permitted). But, what support can you bring that all subsequent and prior events are equally "efficacious" in nature? You're view doesn't allow any decree to fit within the second category Luke. Edwards does allow for the actual sins (evil intents etc) to fit under the permissive side of God's decree and NOT under his immediate agency. Do you see the difference?

    Can you tell me one thing that you would categorize as being "permitted" rather than "determined by His own immediate agency?" Thanks.
     
  6. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    A lie is only an lie BECAUSE of motive.

    If you tell me something that isn't true is that of necessity a lie?
     
  7. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
     
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Luke, even your own were trying to reign you in on some of your choice of words. Clearly you have been less than clear about what you believe regarding this difficult subject, but I'll let it go because you are obviously getting heated and I really don't care to continue a conversation that is only going to upset you.

    If you want to stick the subject matter at hand then you may want to take a look at the definition of "decree" I have provided for your consideration. Notice the two levels of the decree. Do you see how Edwards explanations utilizes both categories? Here it is again:

    "The decrees of God are (1) efficacious, as they respect those events he has determined to bring about by his own immediate agency; or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect." (Bible Dictionary)

    Even Calvin is clear that God doesn't decree sin or evil by his own immediate agency, as does Edwards. Instead, both point to the "permissive" decree by which God allows sin, so as to accomplish a greater purpose, which yes will most certainly come about as Edwards quote clearly explains. See the distinction I'm attempting to draw? I think that is what Edwards was doing and even what Calvin does. I don't see that you are willing to make that distinction which is maybe why even glf called you out on it. You are getting really defensive about it now, so maybe we should just call it quits, but I just ask you to take another look at it objectively.
     
  9. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    I have been clear that God is the "cause" of evil only in an ULTIMATE sense. I have distinguished "cause" by the word "ultimate" before it no less than a dozen times.

    God is not the "proximate cause" of sin. But that he willed it, decreed that it should come to pass in eternity past, empowers the one who commits it to do so, orders the state of events so that it will inevitably come to be, permits it when the time comes by refusing to restrain the evil passions of the sinner by his Providence, has a purpose for it and himself BRINGS THE DEED TO PASS by these and other factors is clear from both Scripture and logic.

    Did Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Romans kill Christ?
    Did God kill Christ?

    Did Satan afflict Job?
    Did God afflict Job?

    Did Joseph's brothers afflict Joseph?
    Did God afflict Joseph?

    Did the Assyrians come against God's people?
    Did God come against God's people?

    Does the anti-christ lead men away from the truth?
    Does God lead those same people away from the truth?

    Did Pharaoh harden his heart?
    Did God harden Pharaoh's heart?
    (Don't be a coward and only answer this one. Arminians love to try this one while avoiding the others)

    The fact of the matter is that God is doing these things and men are doing them. It is sin on men's parts but it is holy on God's part. Men do them for immediate and wicked purposes. God does them for ultimate and righteous purposes.

    This is the plain teaching of Scripture, and as I have demonstrated repeatedly, it is what brilliant theologians like Edwards taught.
     
  10. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    Objectively:

    The issue historically has been over the meaning of the words "cause" and "author" as they relate to the origin of evil.

    I pointed that out to you when I showed that Edwards said "...if by author you mean... then no... but if by 'author' you mean... then yes..."

    This is plenty to show that there is a real sense in which Edwards thought that "author" of sin was applicable as it relates to God. But he, like myself, is not comfortable with that terminology because of how it can relate certain improper thoughts. So we choose to avoid that terminology be it ever so accurate in certain narrow senses.

    You asked that I show one theologian who believes that God decreed evil. This is proof that you are not reading my posts because I have posted this quote which clearly does just that from the very man in question in multiple posts:

    And even THAT is not enough for you.

    When it comes to the word "cause" you are misunderstanding what many theologians are purporting. They mean that God's decrees are not to be BLAMED for evil. Men's choices are.

    But that God is the "ultimate" or "remote" cause is what men like Calvin clearly believed.

    Here is Piper on Calvin's belief on these matters quoting and expounding Calvin's own words:

    God is not the "author and approver of transgression." This is because he HATES evil and despises that men choose it. But God is the "remote" or "ultimate" cause of the carrying out of the deed though it is evil from man's part and holy on God's. Motive is the issue.

    There is no flip flopping here though you seem to love to claim that I am doing so. It is simply a VERY complex issue in which there is a sense in which terms are fully appropriate and another sense at the same time in which they are terribly inappropriate.

    The fact is that God is NOT the author of evil in a certain sense being that he hates evil and cannot do evil.
    But an equally true fact is that he IS the remote or ultimate cause of evil in another sense in which he wills, decrees, empowers, purposes and plans and permits it to come to pass. But you only focus on the LAST word in the previous sentence which is NOT sufficient to properly address this issue.

    God is in a real sense DOING the deed via the hands and wills of men but his doing it is pure and the deed on his part is NOT evil. The answering of the questions in the above post prove this sufficiently for any objective thinker.
    And at the exact same time there is a real sense in which men are doing these deeds but they are absolutely wicked and vile and reprehensible.

    I will not speak of Dahmer as you wish because of the uncouth and improper terminology necessary to expound upon the facets of his reprehensible actions. I will only speak of events in Scripture and other events which do not require offensive language to describe them.
    To speak of Dahmer will require terms of sexual nature which are inappropriate in such a forum as this. You should, for this reason alone, out of proper gentlemanly etiquette abandon for good this endeavor to expound upon his sins for illustrative purposes. One need look no further than Calvary for sufficient evidences of the remote and proximate cause of sin since it is there that we find the MOST heinous of all sins.

    Piper notes:
    It is pure stubbornness for you to further deny that Calvin and Edwards disagree with my position on this matter.

    For you to do so any further is for you to manifest that you have other motives than iron sharpening iron.

    That Calvin believed that God was the ultimate or "remote" cause of the existence of evil and that there was a real sense in which Edwards could see the use of the terminology "author of sin" as being accurate in relation to God's decrees, though not the best terminology to describe it, is abundantly clear.

    I request that you answer the questions in the above posts before you address this one.
     
    #70 Luke2427, Feb 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2011
  11. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, it is a falsehood, it is a lie, even if I mistakenly or sincerely believe it to be the truth.

    If your doctrine is true, then Jesus's statement in Luke 8:55 itself would be a lie, because he said if he denied he knew his Father he would be a liar. But according to your doctrine, Jesus could deny he knew the Father and it would be the truth.

    So, your doctrine is illogical, contradictory, and necessarily false.
     
  12. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Furthermore Luke, Jeremiah 32:35 absolutely refutes your view that God is the ultimate cause of evil.

    Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that THEY should do this abomination, to CAUSE Judah to sin.

    Here God says he did not decree or command this sin, it did not come into his mind that THEY should do this abomination, and that he did not CAUSE it.

    This verse absolutely refutes your view.
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scripture Cited Is From The NLTse

    As Luther told Erasmus:"Your God is too human." You have to think of God as the Holy Scriptures paint him Winman. He is altogether Holy --thrice Holy! He can't sin in word or deed.

    Note just a sampling of Scripture citations verifying what I'm telling you.

    Job 23:13 : But once he has made his decision,who can change his mind? Whatever he wants to do,he does.

    Psalm 115:3 : Our God is in the heavens,and he does as he wishes.

    Psalm 135:6 : The Lord does whatever pleases him throughout all heaven and earth,and on the seas and in their depths.
     
  14. Ron Wood

    Ron Wood New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is called prooftexting. It is finding a text that used by itself apart from its context proves your premise. It is not only, though not always intentionally, dishonest but a very poor method of studying Scripture. Our theoogy must come not from snipits of Scripture taken as stand alone verses but from immediate context and the context of the Scriptures as a whole. The prooftexting method is commonly used by those who build heresies and cults.
     
  15. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    So if you tell me that Pluto is a planet because that is what you have been taught all your life and you did not know that it is not a planet now- then you are a liar, right?
     
  16. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    Welcome Ron- both to BB and to Winman's world of biblical interpretation.

    God bless!
     
  17. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, your doctrine is built on proof texts.

    The fact is that God said he did not command the Jews to sacrifice their children, it did not come into his mind that they should do this, and he did not cause this.

    And as usual, when you are confronted with scripture that refutes your doctrine you attack the person to divert away from the issue.

    Then you imply I am being dishonest. Right.

    Truth is, this scripture proves you in error and you cannot explain it away. And that is the position Calvinism finds itself in all the time, because there are hundreds of verses that refute it. I am sure you will run to your commentaries now and find how Reformed scholars manage to twist logic and credibility to explain this.
     
  18. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    So, let's cut to the chase...

    Winman, CAN GOD LIE?
     
  19. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    71
    The reason God cannot sin?

    God cannot sin b/c sinning is against His very nature and essence.
     
  20. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, God cannot lie.

    Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
     
Loading...