My reply showed blame on both parts. It was asked for vitriolic posts to be brought to attention on this thread, and I was abiding by the wishes of the OP.
Actually I was referring to "your lack of respect for the Scripture" which you conveniently left off.
Your "observation" is false.
I didn't "break in", I was addressing the wishes of the originator of the OP...and I was involved in it before you even arrived.
Carry on...
A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Feb 2, 2011.
Page 8 of 9
-
Somewhere at the edges of infinity (that is God) all these seemingly parallel tracks come together at the throne seat of God Himself. Our perspective is too limited to see anything other than parallel tracks for some of the true mysteries of Scripture, such as the Trinity, and God's utter sovereignty will yet allowing some aspect of limited expression of will, but the tracks do converge at God -- they have to. -
In years past I've spent my fair share of time in places I shouldn't have, and I can tell you there was more respect and love for each other in those places then here. It's really not even close.
-
-
It appears as if he is saying that God has permitted sin, foreknows it will occur (because he permitted it and foreknows it), and thus it will certainly happen the way he has permitted and foreseen. Would that be an accurate interpretation of Edwards?
If not, please explain.
If so, I agree with him. Notice that what God foreknows and permits he did NOT originate. He did not come up with the idea of child molestation (for example) in Edwards explanation. He simply knew of such evil and permitted it in such as way that he knew it would certainly and infallibly follow. I don't know any "true Arminian" who would disagree with that explanation.
See? True compatablism would have God causally determining Jonah's will to rebel against God's call to preach, then it would have God causally determining Jonah's will to submit to God's call to preach, making God the only real agent in this story. That is not what we believe. We affirm Jonah's LFW and that he freely decided to rebel against God and that God used normative (outward) means to persuade him to do otherwise. That is not true compatablism. Understand?
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
As the author of this thread, may I respectfully request that any personal issues or disagreements be handled through PMs or by starting another thread? As requested in the OP we would like to keep this discussion civil and on subject if at all possible. God Bless and thank you! :godisgood:
-
I've just finished reading this entire thread. I've made a few comments on certain posts and so far the debate is going fairly well (at least until the same old diversionary tactics began).
I'm seeing that it will probably be impossible to answer the OP -- the origin of sin. Not for lack of trying, for sure, but that we are not told in any specific way by God's revelation, and anything else we come up with will be mere human speculation on this issue. Grounded in solid biblical theology (sometimes...) and based in what we know from Scripture, sure, but a definitive answer? Probably not going to find one, and we're not alone. Neither has the entire Church for 2000 years. That is not a cop out, just the reality of dealing with a subject that God has obviously placed "off-limits" for His own reasons. We run the risk of inventing a new religion when we speculate apart from direct or hermeneutically-derived implications driven by the revealed text.
Next, I note that the God of free will is a very small God indeed. He is a God who cannot possibly have the capacity to truly know all things, and decree all things in accordance with His divine will. He seemingly cannot direct every atom in the universe, and He needs to first "see" the actions of His creatures before He can decree what comes next. I find this a very slippery slope that ultimately leads to either universalism or Pelagianism. Every press for the cause of human free will is a press, in fact, against God. Even the argument that God acts on what He sees is a weakening of one's position on God.
While I wrestle with the concepts of the interaction between human will and God's sovereignty, at the end of the day, I'll join (willingly) the crowd that says, "Let God be true and every man a liar..." If I have to "come down on a side..." I'll come down on the side that most magnifies God, for as sinful creatures it is our nature to constantly and continually work to rebel against Holy God and in that rebellion to continue in the practice of sin offered to Eve, "that we can be like God, knowing good and evil..." That clearly was not God's intent from the start, and it was only the advent of sin -- however instigated -- that has caused us to now argue against a position of God's utter sovereignty. -
-
-
How would it make you feel if I said, "the God of Calvinism is a very small God indeed. He is a God who feels as if he must completely dictate everyones thoughts and acts in order to accomplish his purposes, whereas a truly great God would be able to accomplish his purposes in, through and despite the free acts of man's rebellion."
The alternative is God originating the sinful thought and intents of man. Is that better?
I guess when I think of sovereignty I think of a Army General so knowledgeable and powerful he is able to orchestrate a war in such a way to ensure victory despite the pitfalls, enemy and evil that comes. To me Calvinism gives more the impression of a kid playing with his plastic green army men controlling every thought and action and determining all they do in order to ensure his victory. I guess it is just perspective? -
Bro. GLF quoted this:
i am I AM's!!
Willis -
They are not the result of momentum. They are nothing but the absence of something but they are directly causes by the removal of that something.
The Bible is clear that God wills for evil to come to pass- but his motive for its existence is grand and noble. Those who perform it immediately have evil motives.
The Bible is packed with such illustrations.
-
-
Now we have God disposing/determining/ordaining/decreeing/originating/creating/permitting/allowing sinful intents or events? Do all those mean the same thing? If not, which one do you believe and DEFINE it.
We have both affirmed God permits the sin. We both affirm that because of his knowing and permitting the sin that it will most certainly come to pass. However, we still seem to be unclear on the ORIGIN of the sin itself.
Did the intent of Satan's heart ("I will ascend to heaven") originate in Satan's mind or in God's mind? Please answer this question with ONE WORD: SATAN or GOD.
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
And, again, it is an observation, not an accusation--learn the difference
If you were really addressing the wishes of the originator, you would have, at the very least, addressed DHK and me. Of course, you didn't do this. No, what you did was break into an other conversation to make a one-sided observation that fit your only purpose--to smear me. This is plain for everyone to see.
The Archangel -
The thought is the result of God's removal of his light just as darkness is the result of me turning the light off in this room.
I thump the first and CAUSE the rest to fall but I do not thump the rest.
God disposes of events in such a way that when he starts the process certain events will infallibly follow by design.
God designed Adam and Eve and the Serpent and Lucifer and the universe just the way he designed it KNOWING full well that if he designed it that way what would infallibly follow.
If there were a SINGLE outcome throughout time til now and beyond that God did not ultimately wish to happen he could have tweaked the serpent here a little and Adam there a little and Lucifer here a little and design things such that that event, great or small, would most certainly not come to pass.
He could have designed the universe in such a way that I would like onions at this point in my life. If God wanted me to like onions before he built the universe he could have tweaked it just so that everything else would come to pass just as it has except for one thing: luke2427 would like onions.
But he did NOT tweak it that way. He designed it all exactly as he did to bring about the exact results that he knew would come to pass, great and small.
That is what is meant by "disposer of events".
The only logical conclusion is that God willed for the events that resulted in his creation and maintenance of the universe just as he has done it to come to pass.
BUT that is only PART of the scenario. God must still permit each domino to fall along the way.
They are what God's Word confirms again and again:
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose,’
The Arminian argues: God NEVER purposed for evil to exist! That was not his PURPOSE for the earth!
But God said, "I will accomplish ALL my purpose."
God had a purpose for the earth when he made it and he will accomplish every hour of every day of her existence precisely what is his purpose.
These may not be the only options. It is not that simplistic.
I have answered this sufficiently above. If not to your satisfaction I will gladly further elaborate.
Edwards statement promotes the divine decree of the coming to be of evil.
Your statement confirms choice. The two together make up the essence of compatabalism. -
-
But, I disagree that we can KNOW what you propose from the Scriptures. We only know part of the story, and then we have to gather that part from multiple places and writers to even begin to have an idea of what transpired before written human history.
I do admit (readily) that Lucifer was the first to sin against God, but the first to do an action may or may not be the originator of that action. I also admit that Satan was (in all likelihood) not coerced into sin. I know that, not because it is stated as such in the text, but because an exegetically-derived inference is that a God who is not the author of sin would not coerce a created being to indeed sin. The larger issue of permissive will is another thing entirely and hence the rather large discussion on the topic.
Indeed, it was God being in control that demonstrated His divine will to act as He did. He is as much in control now as He was in creation and when Lucifer rebelled against Him. Had He not wished for Lucifer to rebel, He could have halted it. He did not, which means that He has further designs for that rebellion than what we may currently understand. To say otherwise is to say that metaphysical dualism is a reality, and that God and Satan are indeed locked into a war where the winner is not known until the war is ended.
-
See? Your turning off a light doesn't answer the question about where the sinful intent originated. It only appears to be a fun little analogy to make God not seem so culpable for the origination of a sinful intent.
To my knowledge only Open Theist would deny the conclusions you have drawn here. Are you sure you are debating against Arminianism?
Arminianus himself wrote: "I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying, that God both wills and performs good acts, but that He only freely permits those which are evil. Still farther than this, I very readily grant, that even all actions whatever, concerning evil, that can possibly be devised or invented, may be attributed to Divine Providence Employing solely one caution, not to conclude from this concession that God is the cause of sin."
Page 8 of 9