Then don't make claims of my argument being answered on other posts because it does no good to make baseless claims.
I did state it plainly. You are the one insisting this particular argument has been addressed, so you are the one who carries the burden of providing a link, not me.
So where did the intent to kill originate? If in man (Cain) then God was informed by that intent, right? If not, explain your view. If God merely foreknows (as apposed to predetermine) that Cain would kill Able then God was INFORMED by something Cain originated in his own will. Is that your view?
That is contra-causal freewill, which most Calvinists (compatibilists) deny.
Right, through his foreknowing of their evil intent, not his predetermining of their evil intent. I think we are in agreement on this point, whereas Luke might take issue, right?
I really don't think we are very far from each other then...
How am I leaving sin out of the equation by asking the origin of its intent? The intent to sin had to have an origin, right? Is it in God or man? If man, then how is God NOT informed by man?
What have I specifically said to make you think this? I never gave any indication of believing this? I am asking about the origin of the desire to sin. The intent of Cain to kill Able had to have an origin. Agree or disagree? If not in God, then in his creature, and if in a creature then God must have been "informed" through foreknowledge of what the creature originally intended. If not, please explain...
I've defined both God active decrees and permissive decrees several times on this board. How about you provide you definition and draw the distinction between the two?
If God is NEVER informed by man, then please explain this...
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Apr 1, 2011.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
It means that God FOREKNEW their rebellion and used it to bring about redemption for the world. There is a HUGE difference in the concept of God foreknowing evil intents and using them for his own purposes and the concept of God predetermining men's evil intent so that it could not be otherwise. The fact you are not willing or able to make that distinction only reflects that you really don't agree at all with Freeatlast's statement.
A small view of God is one that insists He must play both sides of the chess board to ensure a win. A small view of God thinks in order for Him to really be all powerful he has to be the puppet master pulling the strings of the righteous and the unrighteous. A small view of God poses him as a little boy playing with army men in the dirt controlling both the good guys and the bad ones so as to ensure victory in the battle.
A biblical view of God is one of a romantic God who wants to be pursued and loved. One who relents when beseeched...One who gives to those who are persistent...One who grows angry at rebellion, and compassionate for the humble. The bible reveals a God who weeps with us in our suffering, and intervenes when we cry. He is depicted as a general in an army who rises up to concur are real enemy... A father who runs to embrace a wayward child...
So, you can call all those "small" or "anthropomorphic" views of God if you wish...but I'll stand with the biblical revelations regardless of how you label and dismiss them.
He wrote this without any "Calvinistic" qualifications or anthropomorphic explanations.
Or how about when Jesus said, "5 Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6 because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.' 7 "Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs. 9 "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" -
Just joking with you...but the similarity is striking, you have to admit.
This is a soteriological discussion board and a topic that, because of my history with it, is close to my heart. If anyone doesn't wish to engage, don't. :wavey: -
I fully agree that no one is forced to participate in any particular discussion. I cannot think of any post of mine where I have suggested otherwise.
Regarding my similarity to "Mr Rogers", there must be thousands of people in the Englishg-speaking world with that name. I don't know which of them you mean, but I can't think of anyone known to me called Rogers who looks like me.
(I had to remove your two smileys, because when I tried to post this message with them in, I got an error message saying I had attempted to send a post with five images, and the limit is four. I don't understand that, 'cos it only had your two. Not suggesting that was your fault). -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Satan is a created being and had no intent "prior" to his creation. God knew it and purposed it "beforehand" though, and therefore could not have been informed by Satan's intent, but by the counsel of His own will.
That's what the Spirit says, and that's what I'll have to accept. I won't presume as you do, that simply because I can't reason it out in my finite mind that the doctrine makes God the source or originator of sin.
Christ said greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. God is love, and there could be no better expression of that love than the Son laying down His life for His friends. There could be no better expression of that love than the Cross.
The Cross does take away the sins of the elect, that is true, but that is not why the Cross was made, as if God had no other way to answer sin and forgive the sinner. There was no other way to answer love.
The Cross is not about us. It is about Christ. Without the Cross, Christ would not have obtained a name that is above any other name, and all power and authority could not have been given Him. And unless we take up our crosses and follow Him, neither will we rule and reign with Him.
What compelled God to say anything at all to Moses? What better way to manifest the meekness He gave Moses? What better way to exalt Moses' office? God called Moses to that office, and now that He employs him in the execution of the duties of that office, you think that if not for Moses God would have wiped Israel off the map? God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and there were three thousand that He did not have mercy on that day despite Moses' intercession. -
The accusation that our view somehow thwarts His will falls under the fallacy of question begging because it presumes it wasn't God's will to create free beings, the very point up for debate.
Why not allow scripture to speak for itself? Why do you insist on qualifying everything to fit your man-made systematized dogma? -
I say Adam freely sinned, according to God's will, and we died in Adam. -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon View Post
That is not what we believe. We believe that God intended a world where free creatures could freely choose to obey or disobey. Was he unable to bring that to pass?
Then you can't escape the conclusion that it was God's will that some men freely sin.
Aaron, from Skans statement you can logically conclude that any who sin choose to do so freely, not that God intends for them to sin. :love2: -
And don't think I didn't notice all the questions and arguments you conveniently chose to ignore from my last post. Just answer this one for me:
You said God "knew it," but how did he "KNOW IT?" Did he foreknow what Satan would freely choose? OR did God know it because HE himself intended for Satan to have this intent? How did God come to KNOW IT? -
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
But God knew it, and if He knew it before it was, then it is impossible that it could be otherwise. If He knew before hand He would find corruption in Satan, then it is impossible Satan could be uncorrupted. If He knew Adam would fall, then it is impossible that he would stand.
And so, before the foundation of the world, these things were created and were ordained by Christ, and for Him. It is impossible that it would be otherwise. The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. -
I knew before I was married and had kids that they would sin, but am I culpable for their sin because I didn't prevent their being created? Of course not. That is just one example of how one can know and permit something without being culpable for it. If indeed God did create free moral creatures (contra-causally free I mean), then divine culpability is not a problem. It is only a problem when one assumes such freewill isn't possible, as you do....which is begging the question.
-
But God did create them, and created them sinners, sold to sin. And that was before they had any thoughts or intents and were mere gleams in your eye. He created them as slaves to sin, not free. They could no sooner choose to follow Christ than they could choose to grow wings.
-
Who or what "corrupted" him?
Page 2 of 3