Origin of Sin, Part Deux

"was found", - yes - because in addition to the passive niphal, the verb is in the perfect tense.

There is no actual "past", "present", or "future" tense in Hebrew.

Perfect - completed action - functions as simple past.
Imperfect - incomplete action - functions as simple future.

Present tense can be indicated by an infinitive, participle or verbal noun.

Verb possibilities: Perfect, imperfect, imperative, the infinitive and the participle.

HankD

 

Now, Luke, it certainly appears you are avoiding providing some very simple definitions of terms. Why? Have you looked ahead and seen where it takes you and realize that not even scholarly Calvinists (like Edwards) support what you have attempted to argue?

Let me ask again:

You wrote: "Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it."

I asked: By "cause" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass (as Edwards explained), or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 or both and explain why.

I've narrowed it down to just that one question. Please define the term that you use, that is all I'm asking.

 

Luke,

I am not being a smart alek (^%$^$^) here, but just so I know and understand you, Adam rebelled because God willed him to, it was God's desire and intent for Adam to rebel and cast creation into its fallen status?

 

I believe it was to humble the angels at any cost, even to lose some.

They even had a choice to rebel or go with the plan of God.

 

Can you back this up with Scripture?
Where does it say that God removed his goodness from Lucifer?
In fact it says that it was Lucifer that was lifted up with pride and rebelled against God. He chose to do so. God didn't decree it; nor forced him to do so. He never ordered such circumstances that he would rebel. He is not the author of evil.

 

The reason I'm pressing you on the quote you used from Edwards is because I know how that quote ends. Here is Edwards words in context:

“They who object, that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, ‘the author of sin.’ I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant ‘the sinner, the agent,’ or ‘actor of sin,’ or ‘the doer of a wicked thing’; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.

But if, by ‘the author of sin,’ is mean the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense). And, I do not deny, that God being thus the author of sin, follows from what I have laid down; and, I assert, that it equally follows from the doctrine which is maintained by most of the Arminian divines.

Notice that last line? That means that Edwards view lines up with Arminian scholars, which is exactly what I said. Remember?

This is why I continue to refer to Edwards view as being the same as mine in this regard, while you continue to read your interpretation (whatever that is) into his quotes. I say "whatever that is" not in jest, but in sincere frustration because I don't know what your view is since you refuse to define your terms.

Anyway, I know this is a difficult subject and I don't blame you if you want to move on to another topic. The issue of divine culpability is definitely the most uncomfortable subject for those of the Calvinist persuasion.

 

Many Arminians do agree with the Calvinistic position on the origin of sin.

This is why Arminianism is far safer than this weirdo nameless theology that some on baptistboard have invented with no concern whatsoever for orthodoxy.

But if you cannot get the FACT that in that very quote Edwards is saying that God does MORE than JUST permit sin- I cannot help you.

 

Not to you.

If someone else will ask I will be glad to.

I do not converse with you any more.

 

God willed the fall- absolutely.

I actually believe that Skandelon agrees with this.

 

I've answered that question sufficiently numerous times.

You want a specific answer whereby you think you can entrap me. You are not going to get the answer you want.

I have answered the question. Look on the previous page and reread it.

Tell me what you do not understand about my answer and I will assist you.

 

The Archangel...you out there?

 

Curious, when you say you will "assist" him, but evade answering the question he asked which can only be one of the two options he gave you...how exactly are you assisting him understand your position?

Prophet Webdog

 

Actually that depends on which Calvinist you are addressing. I was just making the point regarding Edwards, not you. You seem to go beyond what Edwards ever actually said which is why I inquired.

We agree on this point. :thumbsup:

Now, Luke, work with me brother. I didn't say that Edwards claimed that God "just permits sin." I affirmed his entire quote including the "certainty and infallibility of sinful events coming to pass," remember? Why wouldn't I, after all, even Edwards himself affirmed that his view lined up with historical Arminianism.

The issue I'm taking with you is what you have claimed above and beyond what Edwards and historical Arminians have taught. We know what Edwards means when he says, "God ordains evil," because he explained it as "the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow," which is consistent with Arminians beliefs.

But when I ask what you mean by "cause" or "ordain" you refuse to answer. Do you agree with Arminians and Edwards, or do you believe God actually originated the intent or sinful thought?

 

Your prophetic abilities are based on your lack of understanding.

The question is in error assuming that I must give one of the two answers he requires.

Only a fool would answer such a question in such a way.

Hey! Why don't you give it a shot?

The fallacy of the question is called a "false dilemma".

You are forever prancing around here on baptistboard in your usual antagonistic nagging manner saying, "Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just answer the question?" when you obviously do not understand why intelligent people do not yield to such questions.

See the definition of a false dilemma below:

False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

1. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?

 

Well, that would depend on how you define the word "willed," and since you refuse to define any terms I'm not sure I'm willing to commit to anything you might attribute to me, and I say that with all due respect and sincerity. I really don't know what you mean by certain terms.

I'll say this. I agree with Edwards who believed that God permitted the fall, foreknowing the events, allowing them to occur and if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow. Is that all you mean by "willed?"

 

I didn't think it was possible to give a false dilemma when one of the answers was the same as Edwards himself, the person you referenced.

But if you felt my answers were not fair why not just say so and provide the correct option? You could say something like, "I don't affirm either choice, but instead I believe XYZ and this is different from Edwards in this way."

 

I am working with you and I am enjoying it. You are dealing with grand issues and I genuinely appreciate it. It is truly a breath of fresh air compared to what we usually have to deal with from these adherents to this mysterious nameless theology.

Your argument is quite good imo, which is also a sight for sore bb eyes.

And I know what you want me to say. But it is not going to happen for this reason: no one knows. The scripture does not say.

We are dealing with what very well may be the most complex issue in the universe.

What we can know from the Word of God is what I have enunciated from the Scriptures in the previous three or four posts.

As to Edwards- he does not line himself up with classic Arminianism. His position predates Arminianism. Arminianism lines itself up with Calvinism on this issue- and frankly, I am glad that it does for Arminians.

I wish you could convert several people here to Arminianism- all of those who will not adopt the DoG, in fact. They would be, at least, orthodox.

 

You have yet to acknowledge Edwards' position on the matter.

 

Several years ago, this is the conclusion I reached as well which made me a lot less dogmatic about my opposition to the idea of libertarian free will...or the ability of man to originate a thought, intent and thus make free choices in a similar manner that God would make choices.

Calvinists typically condemn libertarians for their appeal to mystery, because we don't have a deterministic explanation as to how or why every free choice is made, but as this thread proves we are not the only ones who must appeal to mystery in this regard. The ORIGIN of a thought, desire or intent is at the very heart of this debate and both camps, whether they admit it or not, must appeal to mystery.

Personally I'd rather err on the side of avoiding impugning God's holiness by avoiding any appearance of even suggesting that God might author/originate sin. I believe you can do that without lessoning your view of divine sovereignty.

 

Did you miss Post #26 where I provided Edwards quote in its entirety, acknowledged its equality with historical Arminianism and my views?