Calvinism/origin of sin 2

I never said this was wrong. Just shows you lack of understanding of something is causing you to just say it isn't true.

Argument from silence...

of course they chose it. Did you even read my last post?

I didn't say you did.

Again, you don't understand something so therefore it cannot be true isn't a good argument.

It wasn't? And why not? You haven't given a very good explanation yet other than you don't understand how the two work side by side.

???????I never mentioned Calvinism. Nice red herring though.

Sure I can. And you can't refute it either.

Did God cause those events? No but the events were ordained to happen.

It was ordained. Otherwise there would be no need of a Savior.

I never said you did.

Sure there is a difference. Where did I say they were synonymous? I said they work together. God ordained and allowed at the same time. Something you can't understand so you say it can't be done.

Again, you only say that because you don't understand how they work together. Not much of an argument. You don't understand the trinity but you believe it right?

Of course!


Another example. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Were we forced to have a certain president or did God allow us to have Obama? But the Bible says that it was "ordained by God."

 

I understand. Skandelon understands. So do others. You seem to be confused and are now writing in very similar terms like Luke was. As much as Skandelon challenged Luke, he would not give a good definition of “Decree.” The words “decree” and “allow” are not the same. They don’t work the same. It is one or the other. Either God allows, as he allowed Satan to afflict Job, or He decrees, as it was decreed or ordained that Christ would die for our sins. God never decreed that a rapist would violate a woman. He may allow people to sin, but He doesn’t decree it. If you say that He does then you attribute sin to God making Him the author of sin, and making God a monster. That is the logical course that must be taken.

 

No, that's not the logical course. But I see you were not able to refute my presentation. I have now given you a few examples of something happening that wasn't forced by God yet He ordained it. This post shows you have nothing to argue. You don't understand. Ordained and allow are not the same but they do work together. God is not the author of sin. Every time you say we believe that you are utilizing a straw man. Refute my argument if you are going to disagree. Just not understanding how they work together isn't an argument.

1. Jesus died on the cross. It wasn't forced, but it was ordained.
2. Governments are in place. It wasn't forced, but it was ordained.

Now, there is some difference that you refer to which I'm not denying. Does God want a person to rape someone? Of course not! Did God wasn't Christ to be the redeemer of our sins? Of course.

Consider Genesis 50:20
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. "

This of course is in the context of Joseph and his brothers selling him into slavery. Was the act of selling Joseph sin? Of course. They meant it for evil. It was sin. But it was also ordained that all this would take place. This was all part of God's plan of Joseph going to Egypt by his brothers selling him.

God "works all things according to the counsel of his will." Men will make evil choices with evil intent. (Joseph's brother selling him into slavery, the people murdering Jesus) but God means them for good.

So does God cause sin to happen? No. Does God permit sin? Yes.

Here are the words of Jonathan Edwards in regards to this subject. The object he is answering is the "objection to the divine decrees will be, that according to this doctrine, God may do evil, that good may come of it."

Edward's answer:
"I do not argue that god may commit evil, that good may come of it; but that he may will that evil should come to pass, and permit that it may come to pass, that good may come of it. It is in itself absolutely evil, for any being to commit evil that good may come of it; but it would be no evil, but good, even in a creature, to will that evil should come to pass, if he had wisdom sufficient to see certainly that good would come of it, or that more good would come to pass in that way that in any other."

The works of Jonathan Edwards, A.M.:
With an essay on his genius and writings, Volume 2 p 542 - book from google e-books.

Maybe that will make more sense.

 

"It makes God the author of sin" - Louis Berkhof
Some have raised this as an objection to the doctrine of the decrees of God. This is what Louis Berkhof has to say in response:

“ This, if true, would naturally be an insuperable objection, for God cannot be the author of sin. This follows equally from Scripture, Ps. 92:15; Eccl. 7:29; Jas. 1:13; 1 John 1:5, from the law of God which prohibits all sin, and from the holiness of God. But the charge is not true; the decree merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the authors of sin. God decrees to sustain their free agency, to regulate the circumstances of their life, and to permit that free agency to exert itself in a multitude of acts, of which some are sinful. For good and holy reasons He renders these sinful acts certain, but He does not decree to work evil desires or choices efficiently in man. The decree respecting sin is not an efficient but a permissive decree, or a decree to permit, in distinction from a decree to produce, sin by divine efficiency. No difficulty attaches to such a decree which does not also attach to a mere passive permission of what He could very well prevent, such as the Arminians, who generally raise this objection, assume. The problem of God's relation to sin remains a mystery for us, which we are not able to solve. It may be said, however, that His decree to permit sin, while it renders the entrance of sin into the world certain, does not mean He takes delight in it; but only that He deemed it wise, for the purpose of His self-revelation, to permit moral evil, however abhorrent it may be to His nature.
This is from wikipedia;
http://www.theopedia.com/Decrees_of_God

 

Two quotes from Calvin that contradict each other:

This statement is anathema to the teachings of Jesus.

In the first quote some are excluded from God and in the second quote Calvin says "No man is excluded ...." a complete contradiction of himself.

The first two quotes are from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_calvin.html#ixzz1HsZ9zJxp

Calvin had a dark sense of humor:

 

That has already been proven to be a lie.The Q-man had posted the same months ago and came up dry for documentation from Calvin's works. Therefore,since it is a falsehood, no irony --just a lie.

 

If Calvinism is true, then God absolutely wants men to sin, for only God has the power to regenerate the man. In your system, a sinner is utterly unable to choose good, his every action and will must be evil. A sinner is utterly powerless to convert himself.

Well, if this is so, God must then be pleased for men to sin, otherwise he could easily regenerate them. He is not merely allowing sin, he is ordering it, as he has complete power to convert the sinner whenever he chooses.

You can use any kind of slipperly double-talk you wish, if men remain sinners then God is at fault, because he could easily regenerate every sinner. Only God has the power to prevent sin in your system, therefore he is solely responsible for sin. Men cannot prevent sin in your system, in fact, sin is all they are able to do.

 

God doesn't desire people to sin and he tempts no one as the Scrpture declares. However, the Lord uses the sins of people in His overall plan.

All of the above is true. If you deny it,you deny biblical truths. You are not just against Calvinism.

God does not cause folks to sin. They freely sin -- it's in their nature to sin. They do not need to be coerced. Yes,God alone converts a sinner. People do not have the power to convert themselves. The Lord doesn't convert each and every sinner --only the elect chosen before the foundation of the world.

All people are worthy of eternal death because of their sin. It would be perfectly just for the Lord to condemn every single person to eternal perdition. Yet,because of His mercy He has chosen some undeserving sinners to be recipients of His grace.

God doesn't make people sin. People are responsible for their sin. God is not to be blamed. You sound just the the objector(s) Paul deals with in Romans 9. And I say :"Who are you -- a mere mortal to talk back to God?"

 

Of course I am referencing the "fire" quote as the lie.

 

Please give me a link showing this is not true. I am quite interested. Thanks in advance. There certainly are a lot of hits on the quote.

 

You're asking me to prove a negative claim? LOL!

Regardless of the hits --it's not in any of Calvin's works. Documentation is lacking. That's a warning sign of untruths being spoken.

You and the Q-man need to furnish proof that a "quote" is reliable.

That's basic stuff. Show some integrity.

 

ROFL..... Oh God! FUNNY.

 

Taking God's name in vain is quite hilarious

 

I doubt if very few would object to "the decrees of God."
What they would object to is "what God decreed."
Neither you nor Berkhof existed in eternity past and conversed with God, advising him as to what he should decree and what he shouldn't.

 

When your only answer is "that's not my logical course," when indeed it is, then your presentation has been defeated. You also (like Luke) have refused to answer the same basic questions that I asked of you; the same basic question that Skandelon asked Luke. If you can't clearly delineate between your own terminology you have lost the debate before it has even started.

I have no argument with that.

Okay, Be patient with me now.
Luke says, God decreed the rape take place.
You said, God did not want the rape to take place, but it happened anyway.
I agree with your statement. Thus my statement is that it was not decreed but that God allowed it to happen. God allowed sin to take its course under the Fall knowing full well that man would need a Redeemer. He did not decree specific sins (like rape) to happen. He allows it to happen because of the wicked choices of wicked men, who have a wicked and depraved nature.

True. This is Joseph speaking from God's point of view.

God always carries out his plan. Man will always be responsible for his sin. The Bible says that "the wrath of man will praise him." I look at things in a wider scope. The "event" was ordained of God. The individual sins were not. They were evil acts done by evil brothers, who will some day stand before God and give an account for what they did to their brother. That cannot be glossed over as something good. God allowed them to do evil, in his omniscience knew that they would do evil, but did not decree that they should do evil. He knew that it would happen because of his omniscience. He never decrees evil. That makes him the author of sin.

Again, that is a very general statement referring to an event, and spoken from Joseph's point of view as he comforts his brothers. His brothers will still face God's judgment.

No. Man sins out of his own depraved heart, and must take responsibility for it. He will stand before God and God will judge him for it. God is not going to take the brunt for God causing sin. That isn't logical.
Does God permit sin. Yes, of course. That is the result of the fall.

 

No, you are the one that's making that argument. you have said you don't see how they go together so therefore it's wrong.

Now, you asked what does ordained mean. It means that God chose that the even will happen. Per the rapist. The author of the evil is in the rapist. God could have stopped him, but didn't. He ordained that the event would happen. He allowed it to happen.

So you agree that the sin was ordained. Jesus was put on a cross because of the sinful actions of people murdering him. You also now have admitted that something can be ordained and still be freely chosen by people. There, you agree with me.

A permissive decree. Sure. I am not arguing that God made the person do the rape nor was he the author of that rape happening. But it was part of the course of action in the plan of God. Iconoclast had a good quote in regards to this.

No problem with that

 

You have used the two words "ordained" and "allowed" synonymously without any differentiation. If you omit your statement "He ordained that the event would happen," then the entire paragraph makes sense. Otherwise, "ordain," along with "allow" is redundant.

Yes, I think we agree in many areas.

Okay, you call it a permissive decree.
I look at the Fall, and see that God, because of the sinful nature of man does not restrain evil, but allows man to make his wicked choices. Thus the wicked choices man makes are not decreed by God, but allowed by God. God is still in control; still sovereign. Nothing can be done without his permission, though he still allows man to sin at his own will. And man will take responsibility for that sin.
But in the larger scope of history, it is God that raises up governments and God that takes them down. But the individual sin, man must be held accountable. God allowed them to sin, and they will face judgment for the evil choices that they made.
Hope that makes sense.
I think we probably agree more than disagree. It may be a matter of semantics more than anything.

 

Sorry troll