It "pleased" God that man sinned?

It doesn't say He was pleased with their sin. It says He was pleased to permit it. How else could He show His glorious grace and mercy but by permitting their sin? See Isaiah 53:10 for similar use of the word.

 

You are grasping at straws here. This is one definition of "chaphets" that I found:

"A primitive root; properly to incline to; by implication (literally but rarely) to bend; figuratively to be pleased with, desire: - X any at all, (have, take) delight, desire, favour, like, move, be (well) pleased, have pleasure, will, would."

Here's another one:

"BDB Definition:
1) to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
1a) (Qal)
1a1) of men
1a1a) to take pleasure in, delight in
1a1b) to delight, desire, be pleased to do
1a2) of God
1a2a) to delight in, have pleasure in
1a2b) to be pleased to do
2) to move, bend down
2a) (Qal) to bend down
Part of Speech: verb"

These definitions disagree with yours. The WCF and the KJV are from similar periods, and the uses are similar.

 

Exactly. And the framers of the WCF would have been using the KJV or similar version. They would have based the wording of the confession on their translation, and on the way the word was used in their experience.

And they would have understood that that didn't mean that God was doing the "happy dance" over man's sin, anymore than he was doing the "happy dance" over Christ's death, but that it was his will to permit sin--that he chose (or desired) to permit it for his own purposes--in the same way that it was his will (or his pleasure) for Christ to die.

This is, BTW, a legitimate way to use the word please: to seem right to one; to be one's will

[ May 10, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

this is a rather humorous thread. how anyone could derive that God is 'pleased' by sin based on the quasi-Shakespearian wording of that confession is beyond me. It was by my pleasing that I left this post, but it sure didn't please me that much.

 

A perfect Arminian answer.

(Is it any wonder that Calvinist use Arminian methods of Evangelism when they are stuck with an Arminian Bible and have to give Arminian answers to hard questions?).

God does not CAUSE Adam to "choose against his nature" God "PERMITS the choice"!!

What a perfect - Arminian solution to the problem.

God foreknows the choice and sees the choice that sinless Adam will make "against Adam's own sinless nature". God CAN "stop it" before it happens -- but CHOOSES to allow it.

How is it that ALLOWING free will for Adam (at such geat cost to God in the life of His Son and the suffering of humanity) - is "VALUED" so highly by God that He would PERMIT the choice (not CAUSE the choice) - is the ultimate argument for FREE WILL and the Arminian model!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Merriam Webster has grieve: 4 obsolete a : PROVOKE, ANGER, ENRAGE... which is a bit previous because we still use the word in this way. Getting grief off a person usually means provocation.

I believe that God does not allow man to make a choice but works all things according to His will. He permits nothing but causes all that comes to pass to come to pass.

If Adam had a choice then he would have been sovereign in that choice and that is not possible because God is Sovereign.
EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...

johnp.

 

You misquote me. I said God chose (or desired) to allow the fall of man, and so does the WCF. You are leaving off something important.

God desired (or willed) to permit the fall. Once again, you are leaving out important words. They are there in the confession. Don't twist what it is saying.

Sin always grieves God. Even when God decided to permit it, knowing full well what was sure to happen, he knew that when it happend the sin itself would grieve him.

God had a good reason for permitting sin, and so he willed to permit it, despite knowing that it would grieve him. Just like he desired (or willed) for Christ to die, knowing full well that it would grieve him when it happened.

Because the term "good pleasure" isn't being used to mean "something that makes one really, really, happy," but "something one has chosen for good reason". Someone can choose to allow something for good reason without being happy when it happens.

Well, yes it does. Ephesians 1:11, for instance, says that God "works all things according to the counsel of his will." It seems to me that the fall would be included as one of the "all things" in the "counsel of his will".

So now that I've responded to what you posted to me, may I ask you some questions? Let me quote your response to me again, with two changes in brackets to reflect more accurately what I wrote, and also what is written in the WCF.

Okay, if we can't say that God willed to allow sin, does that mean he was unwilling to allow it? There are really only two alternatives in this: God chose or willed to allow win, or he allowed it unwillingly. Which one do you agree with?

 

I don't think I'm the one whose doing that. You are putting meanings in words that they don't (or didn't) necessarily have. If you want to understand a document like the WCF, you need to put it in its context--historical and otherwise--and understand what was the framer's intended meanings of the words they used.

Once again, and all throughout your post, you are dropping the word "permit" or "allow" when speaking of the Calvinist or WCF position on this. The concept is that God willed or desired to permit sin to enter the world.

And you did not answer my question: Did God permit the fall willingly or unwillingly?

And did he will not to prevent it?

 

So "all" doesn't really mean "all"??? That seems very convenient.

It is clear that you don't understand the WCF, nor the basic doctrines that are being discussed.

 

Hello icthus.

I see no problem with this. The other way, trying to keep God once seperate from the cause of the sin reduces God and He is not Sovereign if Adam made the choice from his own free will.

Of course. It is the same for the rest of us. We are all under the direct control of God. There are a lot of people in the Church that believe they can say no to God but it is God that says it!

Of course. He wanted to reveal His glory and the cross reveals God's glory completely, how could He do so without a fall? Why then do we feel as if God gets His hands dirty in achieving the cross if at the same time He causes it? He is not bound by the law we are bound with.
If we have an order to the things of God then revealing His glory must have come first. Adam had no chance. The angels had no chance but God prevented some from falling. 1TI 5:21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels...
He elected some not to fall!

Is that what Calvinism teaches? It is not what the Calvinists teach is it? They would have God allowing and permitting others to have sovereignty and that is unacceptable to scripture.
(Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion. Sproul http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html )
I'm probably considered hyper if my brothers are feeling generous.

Yes I get that a lot. To rob God of His Sovereignty is surely blasphemy. 1-1.

I do not argue against it do I? God is the Author sin. I can hold this position I think. I would like to know why we think He cannot do as He pleases to be honest with you. What's the point in being God if you can't do as you please!

Whatcha think of below?
Merriam Webster has grieve: 4 obsolete a : PROVOKE, ANGER, ENRAGE... which is a bit too soon because we still use the word in England this way. Getting grief off a person can mean provocation and a punch on the nose.
It is unanswered by you.
THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646), which is the "Standard Creed" for the majority of Calvinists, has this on the "fall of man"
Creeds are not scripture. Scripture alone is the place of argument if you want to discuss anything with Calvinists. I belong to a Baptist Church and they hold to the WFC. They are not Protestants.
Creeds are just shorthand and are not meant to be complete but I disagree with the WCF here. I see it as a cop out.

What do you think?

Why not? What have you got? Did it come as a surprise to God that Adam sinned?
This is better.
EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...
That's why we can trust Him. We know for a certainty that nothing happens to us unless the Lord causes it to happen in conformity to the purpose of His will. Job knew that. It didn't bother him to know that it was God at work not Satan.

john.

 

Icthus,

I am still waiting for an answer to my question:

 

i'll venture a guess that men have been debating on this very topic for close to 6,000.

 

Well maybe they have Dan but it is time to reach a conclusion.
I have answered but just in case it was missed He was more than willing that Adam should fall.

john.