Did God Create Evil and Sin for His Glory?

What you posted is true, but not in this case. The world was given to Adam to rule, yet Satan is now its prince and "god". How did THAT happen? WHEN did that happen? Why not jut accept that Adam yielded it to the Devil when he fell, and the Devil actually walks in the dominion and authority tha Adam originally had?

This is further proven by the fact that Christ is called the Second Adam-1Cor 15. Wht does that mean??? It means Christ walked in the authority and power of the first Adam. But the key difference is he overcame the Devil, unlike Adam. And the Devil could never touch Him until he freely yielded his life over for the suffering of the Cross.

You have to understand where all this leads--to the truth. The Devil is the temporary "ruler"-Eph 6, walking in the authority granted to Adam. Adam's sin was high treason. And since these things are so, it is the Devil, sin and rebellious man who are doing as they wish--unrestrained. God is not "in control", for that implies an idea that is false--that he is behind all this satanic sinful garbage, and He is not.

Using Calvinistic cliches gives wrong ideas and impressions. Paul said to hold fast to the form of sound words. Our doctrine, and even our words must be carefully chosen.

That is why you find everything but sayings like "God is in control" in Scripture. Read the Psalms. When David or the people of God are in trouble, when the enemy comes, then God is who we turn to, in whom we trust, in whom we hide, our Rock, our helper, etc. Clearly He is not the one bringing the enemyor controlling them, he is there for those who cry out to Him and fear Him. He hears their prayers and delivers them. He is the Deliverer, not the controller. He delivers from the enemies of God and man.

And so, we need our minds renewed by the Word of God, not catchy cliches laced with blasphemous implications. Since God is not "Sovereign" nor "in control" the way Calvinists believe, I prefer not to use those terms at all, because they convey falsehood. Are we clear?

 

This is an example of what happens when one is not hampered by the misdirection of man-made-traditions and can simply read and accept a given text of scripture without having to filter and bend it for the sake of a prior man-made doctrinal spin.

When you SEE the text speaking for all it is worth - you are in a position to just accept it as Arminius has.

Praise God!

Here is a sobering thought - is Christ the victor over "fake temptations"? The author and example of how to win over candied temptations and caramel risks or is He the AUTHOR of salvation and true victor over the forces of darkness?

Preach it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

There it is distilled down to it's purest form -- Calvinism's made up premise for which there is not one single text in all of scripture.

In the Arminian context the fact that God allows free will CREATES the degree of indirection - the degree of freedom that is necessary to remove the RESPONSIBILITY of man's actions from His creator.

In Calvinism such FREEDOM - that provides for God NOT being the author of sin - is not ALLOWED!

NEVER does the bible say "I do not let you choose anything at all - for to do so would mean that I am no longer God - no longer the Sovereign God of all creation".

So Calvinism simply "makes it up"!!

How instructive to the objective, reading, thinking mind!

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is the Calvinist argument That God must MAKE Satan SIN in order to be "sovereign".

It is the Calvinist argument that God must CHOOSE evil FOR satan -- SELECT his victims for him and CAUSE him to torment his victims - so that God CAN be sovereign.

By contrast it is the Arminian Argument that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE to create and sustain a FREE WILL system.

It is the Calvinist contention that God COULD NOT do such a thing and STILL be sovereign because THEY DEFINE sovereignty as "CONTROLLING everyone right down to the CHOICES that they make".

It is another classic example of "Calvinist redefinition" used as a ploy to try and game the argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

All I know - being a Calvinist - is, that God did not create evil or sin, but, that He uses it to His own glory. Evil and sin do not rule over Him, but He rules and over-rules, it.

 

Arminius:

"when the Devil tempted our Lord, he said: Luke 4:4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed untohim all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

So, when did the Devil get all this power and the kingdoms of the world? When was it "delivered unto" him??? And he too can "give" it away??? Explain! Lets see some exegesis and not your pontifications please.
As far as Sovereignty, on another thread I said: That is what the Bible teaches, not Calvin's demeted view of Sovereignty, as espoused by Beloved. The above is the teaching of Scripture, like it or lump it."

GE:

No, 'The above' is Arminius' 'demeted view of Sovereignty, as espoused by' himself.

Have you not read, as in that same pasage you referred to, that "IT IS ALSO WRITTEN", that "the devil is a liar since the beginning"?
So both the devil then, and Arminius at this moment, are liars and give birth to lies.

 

BR:

"It is the Calvinist contention that God COULD NOT do such a thing and STILL be sovereign because THEY DEFINE sovereignty as "CONTROLLING everyone right down to the CHOICES that they make"."

GE:

No, dear Bob; you forget it's sin and evil so "controlling EVERYONE right down to the CHOICES that they make"." Now you come and you say, "It is the Calvinist contention"?

Wow. don't you know the first principles of honesty?

 

Post 68,

"It is the Calvinist contention"? I should have finished, "It is the Calvinist contention" Divine "sovereignty"? Half a word would be enough of course for filled skull.

 

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Where is the choice in that Bob?

That is simply not true. I see no scriptures to back up what you say.

Arminius was caught in his lies not Calvin. You boast of a known liar and believe the words of a known liar? Cool.

john.

 

#1. Is it your claim that Christ had "no choice"??

#2. Is it your claim that the Jews had "no choice but to have Christ given over to them to do with as they pleased"???

Is this supposed to "help" the Calvinist argument in some way?

in Christ,

Bob

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=954072&postcount=52

Quote:
By contrast it is the Arminian Argument that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE to create and sustain a FREE WILL system.

#1. I already quoted you relying heavily on your own exact words here -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=954072&postcount=52

#2. I am not quoting ANYONE in the reference you just gave.

#3. The term used above was "Arminian" not "Arminius".

#4. Arminius has been shown to be Biblically correct time after time on this board when it comes to C/A points. I DID quote him several times (but not in the example you gave) where he was right on target. IF you have an objection to one of them - go ahead and show it instead of merely claiming you did something with one of the quotes I gave of Arminius - where in fact you have not.

Just a thought -

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

It isn't. And I see no reason why you think I would claim such a thing.

they pleased"??? As God pleased. Is it your claim that Christ had "no choice"?

I don't know, I don't try to help the Calvinist cause do I?

Your links do not work. and our deeper reverence. does not sound like my stuff. Did I really say and our deeper reverence.? Show me.
The Arminian God will not win any design awards for His creation and neither will you. Your link leads to a garbled mess.

In His Sovereignty He could have chosen to create a free will system I suppose but the moment another chooses a thing God is no longer Sovereign is He? The one making the choice is sovereign. That is a very simple thing to understand. If a man is sovereign God isn't and you claim He isn't because you say He gave His Sovereignty away. You have decribed God as having as much sovereignty as our queen Elizabeth. That crowd did not give their sovereignty away though, we took it from them.

I do not rely on my words but I do take responsibility for them. But then the entire sentence is odd.

I was just mentioning the lying character of the one you claim is the font of all truth. #4. Arminius has been shown to be Biblically correct time after time... See what I mean?

I'm sure I have nothing better to do and if I haven't answered any point it was because I didn't think any reply was called for. You will have to point out what you want me to reply to in a manner I can understand.

john.

 

Can you cite for us some Calvinists who believes this or would have us to believe it?

If not, then you need to apologize for your dishonesty and retract your accusation.

 

Larry, we're used to it.

 

The Opening Tread says such things Larry. It is blasphemy, but at least Beloved is a consistent Calvinist and does not try to escapte the logical conclusions of the TULIP system.

 

Your "logical" conclusions are not so logical. If you cannot cite a source or quote a Calvinist who believes then withdraw the statement, apologize for saying it, and refrain from such inflammatory language in the future.
You would be wise to re-read the posting rules by which you agreed to abide by when you first registered here and pushed that button that said "I agree." You have constantly broken them, which calls most everything you say into question.

 

"God preordains everything and yet without violence to the will of the creature." John Calvin

 

Excuse me DK, your pal Beloved posted exactly what I objected to and we have went over this already. Why do you act as if you don't know it? When you challenged me for this info I posted Beloved's exact words, and you conveniently didn't address that and kind of stopped your debate with me. Interesting.

But you have Beloved here saying all Arminians are not Christians, we are not following the gospel or the Jesus of the Bible! What in the world is THAT??? Let me help you--lying lunacy, but not untypical sentiments from the Calvinistic camp, as can be documented from many of its apologists past and present.

As for your qoute from Calvin, it didn't matter to him that he contradicted himself all over the place, and his qualifications do not save his ideas. He said there is only one will in the Universe--God's, therefore man has no will, but rather, performs the will of God knowingly or unknowingly. Read the Institutes through carefully, and you will see.

 

You have been challenged more than once and by more than one poster to back up your words with a source. Thus far you haven't done that.

That is a true statemet.
Not all Arminians are Christians. Not all Calvinists are Christians. Not all Baptists are Christians, and certainly not all Pentecostals are Christians. So what!

It is precisely this kind of rhetoric that will earn you a one-way ticket off this board. As I advised go and re-read the rules, especially the ones about posting in grace.

There are many Godly calvinists. Just because you disagree with the theology gives you no right to call them names. If you can't learn to post decently and without demeaning remarks then go somewhere else. We don't need your vitriol here.

I never quoted Calvin. I am not a Calvinist.

It doesn't matter a great deal to me what he beleives, neither does it matter to me what Arminius believes. My beliefs are based on the Scriptures.

I don't plan on reading the Institutes any day soon. I have no reason to. I read and study the Bible. Maybe you should too. It says: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth..."