Results 61 - 80 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16454 | ||
Hello Joe, You're right. I haven't read a response here that really seems to answer my question. And, I'm afraid, I must include yours in that statement. You come close to *asking* my question when you wrote: "Q: So how can God decree sin (along with all other things) without being the author of it?" Depending on just what you mean by your use of the word "decree," it maybe that you are asking here the same question as I am. (I refer you back to our discussion under Gal. 2:17 and again ask that we get some of these words we are using well defined so that we can clearly understand each other.) But, it seems to me, that your answers to this question miss the mark. The first part of your answer to this question was: "...by bringing sinful people into EXISTENCE..." I am not sure how this answers the question. Yes, God brings sinful people into the world (and/or allows sinful people to be brought into the world). As I understand it, He loves each of them, cares for each of them, and does not tempt any of them or cause any of them to sin. And yet, it would seem that this passage is saying something very different. It says that *God* caused this sin. What I want to know is if this is a figure of speech of some sort, or a misunderstanding based on cultural difference, or if it really means exactly what it says and therefore I misunderstand something about God! The second part of your answer to this question was: "...by providing the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to sin." Again, I am not sure how this answers the question. As I said in our discussions on Gal. 2:17, real choice must include both the real ability to choose and the real opportunity to choose. It seems to me that, if this is correct, then we can only be held responsible (guilty) to the degree that we had real choice. My point in that discussion (Gal. 2:17) was to ask, "how can God hold us accountable for things in which we have no real choice?" In other words, if God has predestined every detail of history, including every sin, what *real* choice does anyone have? It was at that point, if my memory serves me correctly, that you referred me to this passage that we are now discussing seemingly as a proof (or evidence) that God really does predetermine (decree, predestine) even the sins that we commit. But my question (from Gal. 2:17) still stands: how can God do that and not be the author of sin? That seems to be a blatent contradiction. In the passage we are discussing here, how can we say that God is not the cause (author) of this sin? The third part of your answer to this question was: "...by limiting the EXTENT of the expression of the sinful act." Again, as I think I said in our discussion attached to Gal. 2:17, I have no problem with the idea of limited freedom. But there is a vast difference between limited freedom and absolute predestination wherein there is no freedom - and therefore there can be no responsibility. But in particular reference to the passage that we discussing at the moment, it gives no indication of God simply limiting the available choices. It quite specifically says that God Himself *would do* this thing. I am finding that to be a very uncomfortable thing. You began your message by writing: "Your post does bring me to something I had wanted to fit in earlier: whether using the words "author," "cause," and "source" synonymously is correct here." Are they not essentially synonomous? I do not see in the remainder of your message an explaination of why they are not. Then, immediately following that statement, you wrote: "Here is my understanding: Q: Where does sin originate? A: The sinful hearts of human beings." I do believe that sin originates in the hearts and minds of God's created beings (angels and humans), and that we are sinful by nature. We sin because we are sinners, not the other way around. But the strongly Calvanistic point of view, if I understand it at all, says more than that. It says that sin originates from God before the foundation of the world in that God decreed (predetermined, predestined) every detail of history! Am I mistaken in this? Anyway, that question more properly belongs back in our discussion on Gal. 2:17. The question I would like answered here (2Sa. 12:11-12) is "how can God say and/or do this without it compromising His holiness?" If it is wrong for people to perform these actions, then must it not also be wrong for God to *cause* them to do this? Have a very good day. As always, I am looking forward to your reply. Bob |
||||||
62 | Can it really be translated otherwise? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15395 | ||
I'm no Hebrew scholar by any means, but from what I can determine from my interlinear and every translation that I have, God is speaking in the first person as the subject and is stating that He would perform the action, not just that the action would happen. Are there any Hebrew scholars out there (maybe even you Kelkat?) that can shed some definitive light on this? |
||||||
63 | All of God's decree is not predestined? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 15394 | ||
Hi Joe, I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. Things are VERY busy and will be for a while now, it seems. I have been doing some thinking and a little reading in reference to 2Sa 12:11-12, and I am finding these verses to be most uncomfortable. And I have not found any satisfactory answers, at least as yet. Even your explanation here is quite unsatisfactory to me. This passage is not just God declaring what will happen. It actually says that God Himself will cause this evil to happen. Three times in these two verses God says, "I will...." I have posted a question to this effect attached to 2Sa. 12:11. If you could respond to that question and clarify just exactly how you understand this passage so that God's holiness is not compromised, I would appreciate it. And there are still some questions here in this thread for which I would very much like to hear your answers (ie. "Isn't all of God's decree predestined?" and "Is that fair representation?" and a couple of others where it seemed like you didn't really answer the question directly). The first thing we need to do, though, is nail down some of these definitions ("Isn't all of God's decree predestined?"). Thanks again your time! Bob |
||||||
64 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15391 | ||
Thanks for your response, Debbie. I would agree with that God is holy and righteous. But I don't know how to understand this passage. It does not say that God would *allow* this sin to take place. I would have no problem with that. But what it says is that God would *cause* it. God is speaking and He says, "I will..." three different times in these two verses. How are we to understand this? | ||||||
65 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15352 | ||
Does this mean, then, that God is in fact the author of sin? This verse was cited to me in another discussion (Gal 2:17) about this same subject (see the message "Bob: What did you think of my view th... Reformer Joe Fri 08/24/01, 8:57pm"). I have done some preliminary reading from my rather limited library, and have come to no satisfactory answers. What this verse (and verse 12) say litterally, or so it would seem to me, is that God Himself would directly cause sin to take place. Granted, it was in judgement of previous sin. But if two wrongs don't make a right for humans, it certainly wouldn't for a holy God either! How can God do this and still be called holy? |
||||||
66 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13968 | ||
Just an addendum to my previous note: you could see my post "Part 2 of 2: How can both be true?" | ||||||
67 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13967 | ||
Hi Norrie, Your description here is more or less how I have come to understand this. The one thing I would want to be made very clear, though, is that God is never surprised by the decisions that we make. He does know the beginning from the end. I just don't think that He can have predetermined (predestined) *all* of those decisions for us. Any decisions that are predestined are not, in fact, *our* decisions; they are God's decisions. What I am trying to understand in all of this is how the Calvinist view can suggest that everything that does happen (including sin) can possibly be *both* "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan" *and* the real exercise of choice on the part of His creatures. As I understand it, any particular decision or choice made by one of God's creatures can be only one or the other, but not both. Suggesting that a decision can be both seems to me to be contradictory, and thus my initial question about this being "a Calvinistic contradiction" (see my post " But aren't they mutually exclusive?" and the follow up post "All of God's decree is not predestined?"). Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
68 | All of God's decree is not predestined? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13966 | ||
Good day Joe, As always, its good to hear from you again. You're making me have to work at this, and that is a good thing. One thing though... you wrote, "we are heading into some pretty deep philosophical waters..." Man! If we are only heading into deep waters now, then I am in *serious* trouble because I have been treading water for a long time now!! In fact, I have been treading water since I jumped into this with the initial question. ;) More seriously, you wrote: "I don't consider "decree" and "predestination" to be synonymous." OK... I guess we need to talk a little more here about the use and meaning of what seem to be very technical terms for you because I have certainly understood them to have essentially the same meaning. You wrote: "Biblically, the term [predestination] is used to describe the eternal destiny of those whom He regenerates..." I think you are correct. The primary use of this word *is* in connection with the eternal destiny of believers. But, by pointing that out in this context, are you suggesting that the *only* thing God has predestined is the glorification of believers? Surely not. What real difference(s) is(are) there between the concept of "God's sovereign will" which He has decreed and the concept of predestination? Or, using the definition that we accepted, what real difference(s) is(are) there between the concept of "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan" which He decreed and the concept of predestination? In essence, they are the same thing. At most, or so it seems to me, the biggest difference between the action of God decreeing and the action of God predestinating is that decreeing is God actually *stating* or *declaring* that which He has predestined (predetermined, decided ahead of time). Am I missing something here? One other point: you spent a fair bit of time and effort in your post "examine[ing] the notion that God limits our freedom without excusing us from the blame for our sin..." I have no problem the notion of "limited freedom" as long as there is still at least some measure of *real* freedom (meaning both the ability and the opportunity to make a choice or exercise will). Humans have never had *complete* freedom, and, in fact, not even God has truly *complete* freedom in His choices as He is limited by His character. For example, God's freedom is limited in that He does not have the choice to lie about something, or do anything else that would contravene His character. Those choices are not available to Him. The point that I was trying to make in my previous post, though, is that if every detail of history (ie. everything that comes to pass in time) is predetermined (decreed, ordained, predestined, decided) by God before any of them actually happened, then 1) that doesn't leave *any* room for freedom to choose on the part of the creatures (as the ability and/or opportunity to choose have not only been limited, but removed) and that 2) this makes God the author (cause, source, originator, predestinator) of every sin that ever has or ever will be committed. Hmmm...I guess that is *2* points, isn't it? And I didn't state the first one very clearly in my previous post. Sorry about that. Thank you again for the time and effort that you are putting into discussing this with me. Again, I am eagerly looking forward to your reply. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
69 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13923 | ||
Hi Norrie, There is a lot to read here. I guess a big part of what I am trying to figure out is whether or not those who hold to a Reformed (strongly Calvinist) interpretation of Scripture believe that there really is such a thing as God truly *permitting* anything, or if absolutely everything has been unchangeably predetermined by God before any of it actually happened. Although I may not be understanding him correctly, it seems to me that Joe is suggesting that *both* of those options are true, while I am contendeing that only one or the other can be true, but not both. Any thoughts? Bob |
||||||
70 | Part 2 of 2: How can both be true? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13863 | ||
Hi Joe, Just to let you know, I have read this. But I think that I need to get your reply to my post ("But aren't they mutually exclusive? Thu 08/23/01, 10:42am) before I can effectively reply to this. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
71 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13862 | ||
Good day Joe, I'm sorry; I thought that we had achieved a common understanding of just what the words "decree" (as used by Spurgeon) and "ordain" (as used in the Westminster Confession of Faith) were actually intending. But it seems I have not understood you clearly. Initially, you wrote (Mon 08/20/01, 6:30am): "I guess the hardest part about the Reformed view to accept from our finite perspective is the idea that God pre-determined that sin would (temporarily) be a part of His grand design. It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth...." I had taken that to mean that you agreed that the concept of decreeing something and allowing something were, in fact, substantially different things; that the words really speak of different things. I need to sort out some of these terms here that seem to a some what technical meaning for you from the way you have used them. Maybe this will help me to understand your view better. Certainly it will help us to communicate better! In this post, you use the phrase "God's sovereign will" a couple of times. By this, do you mean "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan which includes everything that comes to pass in time?" I ask that question because that is what I think you are meaning by the use of that phrase, and yet you explain it by saying that it (and I quote): "includes everything that He either actively engages in or actively permits to occur. Both fall under the category of 'decree,' and both were ordained from eternity past" How does the concept of God "actively permitting" something fit into the concept of God "absolutely predetermining" every detail of history before any of it began? As I understand it, the concept of God "actively permitting" something must mean that there was *real* choice available (ie. that there really was both the *ability* to choose and the *opportunity* to choose), and that, although God would certainly have known what the choice(s) would be, He did not pre-destinate what those choices would be. I hope I am making this clear. What I don't understand is how you can speak of God's action of predestination to include God allowing or permitting. As I understand those two things, they are mutually exclusive; that is, they cannot both be true regarding a particular decision made by one of His creatures. It must be one *or* the other. If God predestinates that a certain creature will make a particular decision (or choice) at particular point in history, then there is no permitting or allowing involved; there is not *really* the ability or the opportunity for that creature to choose anthing other than what God predestined them to choose. For who can resist the will of God? (There is Rom. 9:19 again.) The answer can only be "no one!" What am I missing here? How is it that you seem to be able to put those two things together (that one is even actually a part or subset of the other!) and not find that difficult (or even impossible!)? Help me understand this! I am fully convinced that God has the ability to predestinate anything and everything He wants to. It is within His power to have predestinated every detail of history. But if He did, and if there is sin in the world, then God is also the author (source, cause, designer, the predestinator) of every sin that has ever been committed or ever will be. I must say that I find that to be a *most* disturbing thought! As I have for each of the last several days, I am eagerly looking forward to your reply. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
72 | where did God come from? | OT general | RWC | 13780 | ||
If I may so, your 15 year old sounds rather like me at that age! That seems so long ago now... The simple answer to the question "where did God come from? is, of course, that He has always existed. But what does that really mean? How can that be? If eternity means an un-ending linear sequence of events, and if everything else that exists (or has existed, or will exist) somewhere in that sequence of events had to have at least a beginning (if not not an ending as well), then surely God must *also* have had a beginning at some point in that sequence of events. But God did not have a beginning because He is the only thing that exists completely outside of that sequence of events. That sequence of events is what we call "time" and it is itself a created thing. We exist in (and are presently confined to) "time." We - and the whole universe! - are living out the sequence of events in a dimension called "time." God is the Creator of that. He is not confined to it. When God "looks" at His creation (the whole universe), He looks at it from eternity, that is from outside of the dimension of time. What that means is that He can see the beginning of time and the end of time and every milli-second in between all in the same moment. And the best part of that whole thing is that He doesn't just look in on us from outside, He actually entered into the realm or dimension of time and, more than that even, He actually became one of us. He did that ultimately so that we would have the ability and opportunity to enter into *His* realm of eternity. The plain and simple truth is that we cannot really wrap our minds around the concept of eternity. We try to think of it in terms of "un-ending time," and we do that because we are really confined to time (at least that is true for those of us in *this* world). But eternity is not "un-ending time." Rather it is being outside of the created dimension of time. I hope that this may be of some help, even if it is only "food for thought." I wrestled with this question (and several others!) for many years before I became a believer. I pray that your 15 year old will diligently seek and find some of those answers in much less time than it took me. Make sure that he or she knows that there *are* some answers to be found, but that there are also always going to be unanswered questions. And thank God for that! Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
73 | Part 2 of 2: How can both be true? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13776 | ||
continued from part 1: Later you write: "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")...." I know that is what the Westminster Confession of Faith says (and, again, I think that even those in the Arminian camp would agree with that phrase). What I don't understand is how the authors of that document (and nearly 400 years worth of their adherants... and those who came before them and held the same view) can put those two statements together and not see them as self-contradictory. How can God unchangeably predetermine (predestinate) every detail of history (including sin) before any of it began, and still not be the author (source, cause, designer) of sin? I must say, I am quite confused by one thing that you wrote: "Every move that we make by our own free will..." Was this reference to free will a deliberate choice of words on your part or was it not meant in a literal way (ie. with a technical, theological meaning)? I had understood, and maybe wrongly so, that the strongly Reformed view says that we do not have any such thing, and that the closest thing that humans have had to a free will was in Adam and Eve prior to the Fall (although, as is already clear, I am quite unsure how the idea of free will even before the Fall fits side by side with the strongly Reformed view of predestination). In closing, you wrote: "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." There is no doubt that this issue does need to be explained. If God is who He says He is (namely, in the context of our discussion, that He is Holy), then there must be some explanation for the fact that there is sin in the world. I do not pretend to have all the answers to this (or even most of them... maybe not even a few of them!). And certainly I have some questions that I would like to ask of those holding to a strongly Arminian point of view as well. But those will undoubtedly come up in another thread. What I am hoping to determine, at least tentatively, by starting this particular discussion is whether or not this really is a contradiction within the strongly Reformed view, or if I perceive it that way because of some lack of understanding on my part. If it is the latter, I am afraid that the lack of understanding is still there. I am *thoroughly* enjoying our discussion! Please don't give up on me because I keep bringing our discussion back to what seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
74 | 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." |
||||||
75 | Again, "decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13766 | ||
Hi Joe, Please permit me to ask this of you again. You write: "He did know from eternity past what their choice, would be," This speaks of God's foreknowledge, and that is a very different thing than predestinating Adam's choice to sin. Do we agree on this? And then you continue: "and He decreed that the sin would take place (i.e. he would allow it I thought that we had agreed in previous post that, from the Reformed point of view, God's action of decreeing (at least certainly as Spurgeon intended the use of that word) is not the same thing as God simply allowing something to happen. So again I ask, can "decree" really mean "allow?" And then you write: "it did, however, originate in the hearts of our first parents" But if that particular sin (and indeed every other sin that has ever been committed or ever will be committed) was truely *predestinated* by God from before the foundation of the world, then that must make God the originator (source, cause, author) of that sin. How can it be any other way? If you can explain this to me, that will explain this thing that seems, to me at least, to be a complete contradiction within the Reformed point of view (meaning strongly Calvanist). Bob |
||||||
76 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13697 | ||
Good day Ray, Your thoughts expressed here have crossed my mind on several occassions as well. We are sinners from conception, and we are treading in some very deep water. I suspect that if God were to directly interject His thinking into our discussion here, that all of us might be rebuked as Job was (Job 38:1-41:34) and that all of us would be forced to conclude as Job did (42:2-3): I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." And yet, I think that, as long as we are honestly seeking to understand each other and the Scriptures (and ultimately God Himself!) better, then there is value in this discussion and that God is both pleased and honored by it. I do not think for even a second that this discussion will end the Calvanist-Arminian debate which has gone on for centuries. But that is not my purpose in asking these questions. I am just trying to understand one point of view better than I do now. You concluded by quoting Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." You are quite correct to be more concerned about this. I can only reply with a hearty "Amen." We must never lose sight of this. And you have my permission (not that you need it!) to remind me of this any time that you think I may be losing that focus. Thank you for a timely reminder. Bob |
||||||
77 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13692 | ||
Hello Justin, I believe that the 66-book canon of the Christian Scriptures were inspired in their original writing. And, since God is perfect in all He is and does, there were no errors or contradictions in those writings. And you are quite correct: context is critical to correct understanding. I am not suggesting that there is a contradiction in Scripture. It seems to me that there is a contradiction within a strongly Calvanistic understanding of the Scriptures. In other words, it seems to me (and it might be my own misunderstanding of their point of view!) that Calvin (and indeed, many before him and after him) have carefully read the Scriptures and yet came to at least 2 conclusions (interpretations? understandings?) that contradict each other. What I do not as yet understand is how those conclusions (ie. that 1. God has predestined everything that comes to pass and 2. God is not the author of sin) can both be true at the same time. They seem, to me at least, to be glaring contradictions (ie. they cannot both be true). If you can help me to understand this point of view, it would be greatly appreciated! Bob |
||||||
78 | 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 |
||||||
79 | So God is the cause of sin then | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13593 | ||
Hello Joe, Thank you again for your willingness to discuss this with me logically! It really is appreciated! I have a couple of questions from this posting; one that is primary and one that would be supplemental. In your opening paragraph, you write: "It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct." Ok. I'm glad we have that squared away. In that same opening paragraph, you wrote: "I guess the hardest part about the Reformed view to accept from our finite perspective is the idea that God pre-determined that sin would (temporarily) be a part of His grand design. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth by virtue of His creation of Lucifer and a human couple he knew would succumb to Satan's treachery." My primary question then is this: are you actually saying here that you believe God is the author, the source, the cause of sin? Forgive me if I am not understanding you correctly, but that is what this sounds like. And if I am not understanding you correctly, please help me to see whatever it is that I am missing! That, then brings me to my supplemental question. At several points in your post, you mention the responsibility, blame, and guilt of the sinner. My supplemental question, which assumes that I have understood you correctly above, is this: If God has pre-determined every infitessimal detail of history, which must obviously include sin, then how can those individuals who commit those predetermined sins be held responsible for them? Responsibility, if I understand it correctly, implies the ability to exercise at least some measure will. Will, again if I understand it correctly, requires two things: the *ability* to make a choice and the *opportunity* to make a choice. If either of those two things are removed in any given situation, then the exercise of will is also removed. Would that not also mean that responsibility and guilt have also been removed? If you are meaning that God is the cause of sin, then you are quite right in saying that this would be the hardest thing to accept in the reformed point of view. For me, I think it would be impossible to accept, and I say that for two reasons that I can think of immediately, and both of them have to do with what I understand of the character of God. The first reason is that it seems to fly in the face of God's holiness. If God is holy (and I am quite sure that we are both completely conviced that He is!), then it seems completely contradictory (not just paradoxical!) to suggest that He is also the author (cause, source) of sin. The second reason is that it seems to fly in the face of God's justice. If God is just (and, again, I am quite sure that we are both completely conviced that He is!), then it seems completely contradictory (again, not just paradoxical!) to suggest that He would hold sinners responsible for things over which they neither the ability nor the opportunity to change. How have you intellectually worked your way through or around these issues? Thank you again for your patience with me in this, Joe. I have found our dialogue to be stimulating and pleasant. And I do need to get some of this stuff sorted out in my own mind. Thanks! Bob |
||||||
80 | "Decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13558 | ||
Thank you for such a detailed answer! But I must ask you to clarify something that you wrote. Please be patient with me if I am asking things here that, by the sounds of things elsewhere, might already have been hashed over to the point where some people were getting somewhat emotional. That is not what I want. I just want to try and sort out some of my understanding (and no doubt some mis-understanding) about predestination (and at some point a little later on, about limited atonement), and to do so in as rational a way as possible ("rational" here meaning both logical and free of emotion). You see, I don't seem to fit very well into either the Arminian or Calvanist camps (and that might not be a bad thing!), and I want to know if that is because I don't understand one or both of them well enough. So, with your permission, a question from your response: You wrote: "The understanding of it hinges on grasping the meaning of the word 'decree.' To decree something is to simply declare that that thing shall happen. In the case of God's sovereign decree, the decreed event can either come from God causing it directly, or by God allowing it to happen." How does God's action of decreeing that something will and must take place equate to God simply allowing something to take place, especially if He would really rather that the thing not happen in first place? To my way of thinking, (and I have certainly been wrong before and will be again) fore-telling or predicting that something would happen is a very different thing than decreeing that it will and must happen. Is there something that I'm missing here? And I could ask this same basic question of you from several of your paragraphs. For example: "From eternity past, God knew that His creation would rebel against Him." To me, that speaks of God's fore-knowledge. That is different than predestining something, isn't it? or... "God, by creating the agents involved and allowing them to sin on their own, decreed what would come to pass." To me, "allowing them to sin on their own" seems to speak of something other than what Spurgeon was talking about when he said "In eternity past, God did most wisely decree...and [did] in a most holy and infallible manner execute all his decrees, without being author of the sin of any creature." There are a few other places that I could I quote for you, but fearing that I might be laboring my point, please permit me one more. You said "The simple fact is that God is in control of every infinitessimal detail of His creation. Nothing happens unless He ultimately allows it...." As your statement reads, I don't think that there are many believers from either camp who would disagree with it in the slighest. But if by the phrase "in control of" you actually mean that all these details are absolutely predestined, that they are that way precisely because God decreed that they would be, and that God has not left any room for them to be any other way (which is what it seems to me that Spurgeon was saying, and which is what I have understood the Calvanistic view of predestination to say), then that must mean that God would be the author of sin (which, I presume we both agree, cannot be). I don't know any other way around that conclusion. Please show me how you have avoided this. This is a long post. Thank you for your time and consideration. It is appreciated. Bob |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |