Another question for Calvinists

This is it, IMO.

Ephesians 2 tells us why God ordained that evil be: "That in the ages to come he might show forth the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus..."

Romans 5:8 verifies this- "But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

God SHOWS his love----- How?

By LOVING SINNERS.

There is no showing of this kind of love without sin.

 

I think so, in general. IMO, the non-reformed perspectives that make this argument are stretching. I don't see biblical justification to make free will as the ultimate purpose of God's permitting of the fall.

The reformed position seems somewhat vague, though. In essence, either position could be represented by the claim that God permitted the fall for his glory. In the non-reformed perspective, the claim would be that a world with free will ultimately glorifies God more than a world without it.

I don't have an answer for the question. I simply have no idea why God permitted the fall. I know that there had to be a good reason (or God would not have allowed it). I just don't have any idea what that reason is.

 

My own personal belief is that God desires for His creation (humans) to love Him. There cannot be love without free will to reject Him as well. In the end, when God judges mankind, He will have a family of children that genuinely love Him.

 

This only partially answers the question (why God would allow sin for those he would redeem).

It does not, however, address why God would allow sin for those ultimately to be condemned.

 

But will we be able to love him in heaven, then?

 

Why wouldn't we?

 

Luke, respectfully so, I do not agree with your conclusion that Love of God is not possible without sin. I do agree, His love for us "while we were yet sinners" is an ultimate expression of love though.

Sin and evil is the existence we find ourselves in, but I do not think it was a necessity. If I remember correctly, C.S. Lewis argued that if other created beings existed in other worlds, they need not necessarily have fallen as did we. Unfortunately I cannot remember the particulars of his argument, in "Mere Christianity" I believe.

 

And where is the Scriptural evidence that He could not?

We seem to be in a dilemma here, where all parties are arguing "logic" instead of Scripture.

You do understand the intentional fallacy of "begging the question" and of an "argument from silence," right?

Perhaps not. Here are definitions just in case:

 

Wow. I will tell you this. These free willers sure are teaching me why I left IFB. They don't believe God is able to do too much, and certainly say that He is limited in ability. I never knew such bunk. Thanks to winman for declaring what he feels about God's inabilities.

 

Amen amen amen!!!!! Its just amazing how man thinks that he knows what God can do and can't do!

 

Because it was his will not yours!:BangHead:

 

Why go into hypothesis with you, when you struggle with, twist, and misinterpret plain truth?

 

Because he is God and not man and with God ALL THING ARE POSSIBLE!

 

Answers? See, you can't grasp context even when it is plain.

That wasn't an answer, it was a rejection concerning engaging with you in your hypothesis.

Let me reiterate: You can't see plain truth, you twist, and misinterpret plain truth and Scripture. I won't then engage in hypothesis with you for those reasons. Thus, this is not an answer to your questions.

You have taught me afresh why I am not any longer IFB. You limit God to your understanding, and limit Him in capability because He cannot possibly do something if you don't believe He can.

That right there is enough to cut you off. You've been warned plenty.

I turn to Titus 3.

 

He doesn't believe that. He limits God. He wants a "manageable God."

I worship the One who is omnipotent. (All powerful)


:thumbsup:

 

Amen a all wise and powerful God we serve!