Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13641 | ||
Good day, Joe! It seems to me that we have come back to our starting point, and I have somehow missed the answer to my question. Your initial quote from the Westminster Confession ("the first section of Chapter III, entitled 'Of God's Eternal Decree'") is, I presume, the basis for Spurgeon's quote which I used to start this discussion. And then you wrote: "So we see two important things right away: 1. ALL things are ordained by God. 2. God is NOT the author of sin." This is precisely the thing that appears to me to be a contradiction (not just a paradox). How can both of these things be true? If God has, as the confession states, "unchangeably ordain[ed] whatsoever comes to pass," how can He be anything other than the author (source, cause) of sin? How does a strong Calvanistic theology logically avoid that conclusion? You also stated these same two principles (that seem like such a glaring contradiction to me) in another way in your next paragraph: "the Reformed theologian will state emphatically that God weaves the rebellion of man in the tapestry of His overall plan. However, man is the CAUSE of man's sin, not God." According to the reformed view, if I am understanding it correctly, the rebellion of man is not just woven into God's plan, it *is* the plan; it is a critical and foundational part of that plan; it was a deliberately, willfully, and unchangeably predetermined part of that plan. From that perspective, how does that make God something other than the author of sin? Please be patient with me here. I am not trying to be antangonistic, and I have worked hard at doing my best not to come across that way. I really want to understand "how you got there from here." A couple more brief points. First, I contemplated quoting Rom. 9:19-21 myself because, if that passage is in fact talking about God's predetermination *to salvation*, then indeed, it asks (and does not answer!) the same question that I am. Does that mean that, from a reformed point of view, this is a taboo question; one that we are not permitted to honestly ask and seek answers for? Personally, I think that Cranfield has come up with the best explaination of those 3 chapters, at least that I have encountered thus far. I would like to ask him a few questions as well, though! Second, you wrote: "Just out of curiosity, how would you work the verses here and in my other posts into another framework. Where do you stand on the reconciliation of God's sovereignty and man's sin?" That is a fair question, but with your permission (and I mean that!), I would like to refrain from sharing what I think for now. I don't have any secrets or special insights or anything like that. So no worries there. I would just like to avoid this turning into a debate comparing and contrasting two points of view, at least certainly for the time being. What I am looking to accomplish in our discussion, as I said in a previous post, is gain a clearer understanding of the strong Calvanistic point of view. And, I hope that our discussion will be of some value to you as well, and perhaps to others who might be reading this. I know, it is much easier for me to "sit in the shadows" so to speak and poke questions at you and what you have come to understand than it is for you to "be on the hot seat" and try and answer them all. So again, please be patient with me. I hope and pray that my questions do not seem antagonistic in any way. Believe me, that is not my intent! And besides all of that, in sharing what I think, I have a lot more questions than answers anyway! As I said in a previous post, I don't fit very well into either camp in the Arminian-Calvanist debate. Have a very good day! Bob |
||||||
2 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13720 | ||
Bob: Don't worry about coming across as anagonistic. Healthy discussion and debate is like dessert to me! :) I find you framing Chapter III of the Westminster Confession as a contradiction a little difficult to work with, and that is why I asked for your view. You see, all believers in the Bible have to reconcile an omipotent, omniscient God with the fact that He created beings who would rebel against Him (Satan and his angels and human beings). The way, I see it, there are three options in explaining why he would do such a thing: 1. He did not know they would sin against Him when he created them. 2. He did know that they would sin when He created them, but decided to "work around" that to glorify Himself anyway. 3. He did know that they would sin when He created them, and fully intended to work through their rebellion to glorify Himself. I hold (1) to be a denial of God knowing the future, and I reject that as unbiblical. The Scriptures I stated in my previous posts repudiate (2) by showing that God indeed intends the sin of humans and Satan to be used directly for His glory, in spite of the efforst of those who fight Him. Therefore, I embrace (3) as being the biblical answer. Whether Calvinist or Arminian, the fact still remains that God created beings who would become rebels against Him. To say that it was a mistake on God's part would deny His infinite wisdom, so there must have been a purpose to it. In any case, also note that God did not CREATE them in a state of sinfulness; both Satan and Adam were created in a state in which they were sinless, but corruptible. The Reformed view does not hold that God encouraged them to sin or entrapped them in some situation that they could not get out of, for that, too would violate Scripture: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." --James 1:13-15 So while God did not MAKE Satan rebel or Adam sin (Chapter III of WCF states "nor was violence offered to the will of the creatures"), He created them will full knowledge that they would rebel. Therefore, the sin was theirs, but God had purpose in creating those who would become sinners. It would seem to deny some of God's revealed attributes to say otherwise. It is always a daunting task to ever attempt to even get the slightest grasp of God's soverign will over existence. We in our, finite, temporal bodies try to understand how no matter what we do, that God's purposes will be accomplished. It goes beyond some "cosmic chess match" where God compensates for "our moves." Every move that we make by our own free will, whether pleasing to God or dishonoring to Him, has already been incorporated into His sovereign decree from eternity past and will ultimately result in his glory. God created beings who would become vile, sinful creatures; it was His decree. God permitted them to sin; it was His decree. He permits us to be born in a state of rebellion against Him; that is His decree. He chooses some to be regenerated and dwell with Him for eternity to demonstrate His mercy and love and grace, and others to remain in their rebellious, sinful state and suffer His justice and wrath for THEIR sinfulness. Again, it is all part of His plan, not loose ends that he has to tie up after all is said and done. I see nothing in your comments that presents a more particular problem for Calvinists than it does for Arminians who must also explain that God created sinners, and is not the author of sin. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Part 1 of 2: Is that fair representation | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13774 | ||
Good day Joe, I guess I am too "wordy" as the system keeps telling me that I have exceeded the maximum allowable length for a posting, even after I have tried to "edit it down." I shall break it into two parts. My apologies. First of all, you wrote: "Don't worry about coming across as anagonistic. Healthy discussion and debate is like dessert to me! :) " Thank you for your grace and patience! And this discussion is healthy! Thank you for that too. I read this post from you last night and have given it some thought. Please carefully consider the following points and/or questions and, if I am misunderstanding the Reformed view somehow, please show me what it is that I am missing. You write: "I find you framing Chapter III of the Westminster Confession as a contradiction a little difficult to work with," Good; it's not just me then!!! My problem (or at least one of my two main problems) with the strongly Reformed (Calvanist) point of view is that I do not know how to "frame it" so that it is anything other than a contradiction. I do not know how these two things can both be true at the same time. That is what I am hoping to answer by starting this thread. You then write: "You see, all believers in the Bible have to reconcile an omipotent, omniscient God with the fact that He created beings who would rebel against Him (Satan and his angels and human beings)." That is very true! And then you wrote (and this is what I had to really think about!): "The way, I see it, there are three options in explaining why he would do such a thing: "1. He did not know they would sin against Him when he created them. "2. He did know that they would sin when He created them, but decided to "work around" that to glorify Himself anyway. "3. He did know that they would sin when He created them, and fully intended to work through their rebellion to glorify Himself." And then you conclude your following paragraph by saying: "I embrace (3) as being the biblical answer." Of the 3 options that you have given here, I would embrace (3) as being the most biblical answer just as you do. But sir, with all due respect, it seems to me that you have not fairly (or maybe I should say "completely") stated the strongly Reformed (Calvanist) position in any of your three options. You third option clearly states God's *foreknowledge* of sin (which I believe even the most staunch Arminian would agree to), but it does not declare that God did actually pre-determine (predestinate) sin in such a way that it could not have occurred any other way than *exactly* as He determined it would. If that is not a correct representation the strongly Reformed (Calvanist) position, then maybe that is the part I do not understand and why this issue seems so contradictory. But, from what I have read and heard, so far at least, I think that I do understand at least this part of the Calvanist point of view correctly. Thus my quandry (spelling?). More in "part 2." |
||||||
4 | Part 1 of 2: Is that fair representation | Gal 2:17 | Radioman | 14098 | ||
Normally, posts that are directed to one forum member in particular are not posted as "Primary questions." When the posted question is overly long, such posts can be irritating since others have to scroll past them to read other questions which are truly meant for anyone and everyone on the Forum. | ||||||