A Civil Discussion about the Origin of Sin

My reply showed blame on both parts. It was asked for vitriolic posts to be brought to attention on this thread, and I was abiding by the wishes of the OP.

Actually I was referring to "your lack of respect for the Scripture" which you conveniently left off.

Your "observation" is false.

I didn't "break in", I was addressing the wishes of the originator of the OP...and I was involved in it before you even arrived.

Carry on...

 

I would suggest the term antinomy instead of paradox, though God's sovereign actions can appear paradoxical to we limited humans.

Somewhere at the edges of infinity (that is God) all these seemingly parallel tracks come together at the throne seat of God Himself. Our perspective is too limited to see anything other than parallel tracks for some of the true mysteries of Scripture, such as the Trinity, and God's utter sovereignty will yet allowing some aspect of limited expression of will, but the tracks do converge at God -- they have to.

 

In years past I've spent my fair share of time in places I shouldn't have, and I can tell you there was more respect and love for each other in those places then here. It's really not even close.

 

This is not completely accurate, as I have been "moderated" by DHK in the past on other threads, and I certainly fall within the Non-Cal camp.

 

Out of curiosity (& note I didnt read this entire thread) why did you select RC Sproul Jr?

 

I've just finished reading this entire thread. I've made a few comments on certain posts and so far the debate is going fairly well (at least until the same old diversionary tactics began).

I'm seeing that it will probably be impossible to answer the OP -- the origin of sin. Not for lack of trying, for sure, but that we are not told in any specific way by God's revelation, and anything else we come up with will be mere human speculation on this issue. Grounded in solid biblical theology (sometimes...) and based in what we know from Scripture, sure, but a definitive answer? Probably not going to find one, and we're not alone. Neither has the entire Church for 2000 years. That is not a cop out, just the reality of dealing with a subject that God has obviously placed "off-limits" for His own reasons. We run the risk of inventing a new religion when we speculate apart from direct or hermeneutically-derived implications driven by the revealed text.

Next, I note that the God of free will is a very small God indeed. He is a God who cannot possibly have the capacity to truly know all things, and decree all things in accordance with His divine will. He seemingly cannot direct every atom in the universe, and He needs to first "see" the actions of His creatures before He can decree what comes next. I find this a very slippery slope that ultimately leads to either universalism or Pelagianism. Every press for the cause of human free will is a press, in fact, against God. Even the argument that God acts on what He sees is a weakening of one's position on God.

While I wrestle with the concepts of the interaction between human will and God's sovereignty, at the end of the day, I'll join (willingly) the crowd that says, "Let God be true and every man a liar..." If I have to "come down on a side..." I'll come down on the side that most magnifies God, for as sinful creatures it is our nature to constantly and continually work to rebel against Holy God and in that rebellion to continue in the practice of sin offered to Eve, "that we can be like God, knowing good and evil..." That clearly was not God's intent from the start, and it was only the advent of sin -- however instigated -- that has caused us to now argue against a position of God's utter sovereignty.

 

....I didnt. He was quoted extensively in Kenneth Keathley's book, Salvation and Sovereignty.

 

Sorry, Skan will do.

 

Bro. GLF quoted this:

Please don't take anything I post as being snippy, rude, boastful, boistrous, etc. I don't see where the "impossibilty" of the originator of sin is. It lays solely on Lucifer. According to His Word, Lucifer was made good, until iniquity was found in him.....Ezek 28:15. In Isaiah 14, we see where his pride makes him want to exhalt himself above God, and he was thrown down. In Prov. 16 it says that pride goeth before the fall(I am paraphrasing here). Lucifer is the one who sinned first, or at least that's the way I see it. I do not find in His Record, where his arm was twisted, where he had outside influence, was coerced, etc. He chose to rebel against God, and in this rebellion,a third of the angels fell with him...Rev. 12.

Brother, how does a God of "free will" weaken His stature and/or status?? He IS God, and can go ANY route He chooses, or decrees. I never have found any scripture that will support "hell" until after Lucifer rebelled with a third of the angels in heaven. It was after their rebellion, that hell was created....or at least I think this is the case. If not, show me where I am wrong, and I will apologize for my mistake. Just because God allowed Lucifer to rebel, doesn't make Him not in control. He could have stopped Lucifer from what he did, but He didn't,for whatever reason, only He knows. He chose to allow the rebellion to take place, plain and simple.

That which I bolded, I will say a hearty AMEN!! :thumbs: I, too, will magnify God for what He did for me! What He did, no man could do, and that was save my soul!! Just because I believe in FW doesn't mean I believe in a "non-sovereign" God, because He is sovereign in that He gave us two destinations in which to choose from. When He calls, if we reject Him until the day we die, He controls our destination, hell. When He calls, and if we accept His free gift of salvation, He controls that destination, too....heaven. God is so sovereign, that when we were sinners out tromping down His "tender hand of mercy", He still had to give us our breath to do all our evil deeds. Now that IS sovereign!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

Darkness and cold are not created things.

They are not the result of momentum. They are nothing but the absence of something but they are directly causes by the removal of that something.

What you are missing is that permission and allowance is only part of a whole in his thinking. The other part is God DISPOSING those events SO THAT evil WILL most CERTAINLY follow.

Yes. Well I hope you are successful in turning some of these with nameless theologies who will NOT turn to the DoG into Arminians. They'd be a lot better off.

No. True compatabalism simply states that the one deed is performed by both the human agent and God but with totally different motives.

The Bible is clear that God wills for evil to come to pass- but his motive for its existence is grand and noble. Those who perform it immediately have evil motives.
The Bible is packed with such illustrations.

I think I addressed this sufficiently above.

 

Actually, the very same thing can be said of light and heat. Darkness is created when light is removed, darkness is removed when light is added. My refrigerator creates cold.

Wasn't this supposed to be civil, Luke?

 

No, this is not what your post did. By your very actions--calling me out (wrongly, I might add) and accusing me of being "vitriolic," all the while not calling out DHK after calling him the "instigator" is pure hypocrisy.

No, I didn't leave it off. It was in the quote for all to see. I alluded to the first part of the quote to save keystrokes and space.

And, again, it is an observation, not an accusation--learn the difference

You were addressing the wishes of the originator only when I addressed someone who is ideologically similar to yourself and, by your own admission, who was the instigator (meaning initiator) of the so-called "Vitriol."

If you were really addressing the wishes of the originator, you would have, at the very least, addressed DHK and me. Of course, you didn't do this. No, what you did was break into an other conversation to make a one-sided observation that fit your only purpose--to smear me. This is plain for everyone to see.

As if we needed your permission........ridiculous.

The Archangel

 

That is begging the question. It is a result of darkness. Such thoughts CANNOT exist in the presence of the light of God. God must withdraw his light in order for such a thought to take place.

The thought is the result of God's removal of his light just as darkness is the result of me turning the light off in this room.

It is what God does. It is like the stacking of dominoes.

I thump the first and CAUSE the rest to fall but I do not thump the rest.

God disposes of events in such a way that when he starts the process certain events will infallibly follow by design.

God designed Adam and Eve and the Serpent and Lucifer and the universe just the way he designed it KNOWING full well that if he designed it that way what would infallibly follow.

If there were a SINGLE outcome throughout time til now and beyond that God did not ultimately wish to happen he could have tweaked the serpent here a little and Adam there a little and Lucifer here a little and design things such that that event, great or small, would most certainly not come to pass.

He could have designed the universe in such a way that I would like onions at this point in my life. If God wanted me to like onions before he built the universe he could have tweaked it just so that everything else would come to pass just as it has except for one thing: luke2427 would like onions.

But he did NOT tweak it that way. He designed it all exactly as he did to bring about the exact results that he knew would come to pass, great and small.

That is what is meant by "disposer of events".

The only logical conclusion is that God willed for the events that resulted in his creation and maintenance of the universe just as he has done it to come to pass.

BUT that is only PART of the scenario. God must still permit each domino to fall along the way.

Excellent. Now what are the conclusions of this fact. God permits it so that it will most certainly follow. What does that mean? What are the implications of this plain fact?

They are what God's Word confirms again and again:

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose,’

The Arminian argues: God NEVER purposed for evil to exist! That was not his PURPOSE for the earth!
But God said, "I will accomplish ALL my purpose."

God had a purpose for the earth when he made it and he will accomplish every hour of every day of her existence precisely what is his purpose.

This is a false dilemma.

These may not be the only options. It is not that simplistic.

I have answered this sufficiently above. If not to your satisfaction I will gladly further elaborate.

When you agree with Edwards that God is the disposer of events in such a way so that upon his permission evil will most certainly come to pass and you also affirm that you believe man has a choice you are lining yourself up with compatabalism.

Edwards statement promotes the divine decree of the coming to be of evil.
Your statement confirms choice. The two together make up the essence of compatabalism.

 

I guess you missed where the author of the OP asked to take this to PM? I'll address you there.

 

I won't... I never meant my post to mean that people cannot have an opinion. Of course you can. I do get tired of people taking drive-by hits on persons with whom they disagree while not contributing to the debate in any meaningful way, however.

But, I disagree that we can KNOW what you propose from the Scriptures. We only know part of the story, and then we have to gather that part from multiple places and writers to even begin to have an idea of what transpired before written human history.

I do admit (readily) that Lucifer was the first to sin against God, but the first to do an action may or may not be the originator of that action. I also admit that Satan was (in all likelihood) not coerced into sin. I know that, not because it is stated as such in the text, but because an exegetically-derived inference is that a God who is not the author of sin would not coerce a created being to indeed sin. The larger issue of permissive will is another thing entirely and hence the rather large discussion on the topic.

By introducing fee will (in the sense it is being argued) one makes God a "responder" instead of THE initiator. That, in and of itself, weakens the stature and status of God, and I should add "in human perception" -- nothing truly weakens God in any sense whatsoever, He is Almighty!

Indeed, it was God being in control that demonstrated His divine will to act as He did. He is as much in control now as He was in creation and when Lucifer rebelled against Him. Had He not wished for Lucifer to rebel, He could have halted it. He did not, which means that He has further designs for that rebellion than what we may currently understand. To say otherwise is to say that metaphysical dualism is a reality, and that God and Satan are indeed locked into a war where the winner is not known until the war is ended.

In a sense, you have to believe in a non-sovereign God, for you have made God a responder to your own actions. Inventing a theological doctrine that says that God's sovereignty is invested in the free will of humans (in the way that fee will is being presented in these debates) is of no consequence, for it cannot be demonstrated in the Scriptures. And, please do not be offended, but the issue of human free will is indeed a theological invention. Pelagius was the first to attempt it, and he was declared heretical. When the teachings of Arminius were brought to bear in the Synod of Dort, his teaching also was declared heretical. I'm not willing to carry Arminius' teachings to the same point Dort did, but I would greatly emphasize the aspects of God's sovereign grace over the free will of humans presented in those statements of the Remonstrance.