Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Galatians 2:17 "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Galatians 2:17 "But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ [by faith], we ourselves are found to be sinners, does that make Christ an advocate or promoter of our sin? Certainly not! |
Bible Question:
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 |
Bible Answer: Hello Scripture must be read in context. 'an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth', from face value, contradicts 'turn the other cheek' but in context it makes complete sense. Think how Satan deceived Eve by twisting the truth of God's word. Think how Satan tempted Jesus by using scripture out of context. The apparent contradictions in scripture are not contradictions at all. Try not to look at scripture in isolation. With regard your question how would you then explain God asking us to pray for His will (this indicated that His will is not being done) and also the fact that He works all things together (why would He have to work things together if they were merely part of a “script” playing itself out) Many other religions have been fooled by only following part of the inspired Word of God and thereby ignoring the fundamental "in context" rule of thumb. If I maybe haven't answered your question I hope that at least I have encouraged you not to read (or find understanding) in isolated scripture. Yours in Christ Justin |