PDA

View Full Version : The Calvinist view of God...



Brother Mark
Jun 11th 2008, 10:11 PM
I have been to many churches including presbyterian, baptist, pentecostal, etc. I have rubbed elbows with arminian and calvinist alike. But on this board I have begun to see a view of God that is rather distressing. Some have pushed a view of God that makes him into a selfish and self centered being. But that's not the purpose of this thread. Here is what is amazing to me.

Some have preached that God purposed for Adam to sin so that God could reveal his great love to all of creation. Now think about this. Let's say a dad poisoned his son in order to kill his kidneys. Then lets say that same dad gave his kidneys to his boy in order to save his life so that he could bring glory and praise to himself for his sacrifice and goodness, we would have that man locked up! We would consider him crazy and a murderer.

Yet, this is the view that some have of God. That he willed Adam to be poisoned through sin so that he would die. Then God could be the hero and save Adam by giving his own life.

It's a bad view of God in my opinion.

9Marksfan
Jun 11th 2008, 11:40 PM
I have been to many churches including presbyterian, baptist, pentecostal, etc. I have rubbed elbows with arminian and calvinist alike. But on this board I have begun to see a view of God that is rather distressing. Some have pushed a view of God that makes him into a selfish and self centered being. But that's not the purpose of this thread. Here is what is amazing to me.

Some have preached that God purposed for Adam to sin so that God could reveal his great love to all of creation. Now think about this. Let's say a dad poisoned his son in order to kill his kidneys. Then lets say that same dad gave his kidneys to his boy in order to save his life so that he could bring glory and praise to himself for his sacrifice and goodness, we would have that man locked up! We would consider him crazy and a murderer.

Yet, this is the view that some have of God. That he willed Adam to be poisoned through sin so that he would die. Then God could be the hero and save Adam by giving his own life.

It's a bad view of God in my opinion.

But it's the biblical view. John Piper preached on this at New Horizon in Northern Ireland in July, 2006 - the following night, RT Kendall (who was always speaking) was introduced on the platform. When asked what he thought of NH so far, he unhesitatingly answered "John Piper's message last night was quite simply the finest sermon I have ever heard". There was spontaneous applause from all gathered there - and most of them would NOT be Calvinists.

If man had not sinned, God COULD not have shown us the FULL extent of His mercy and grace in Christ, because He wouldn't have needed to come and die - and it's His DEATH that will be the focus in Glory of our worship of the Lamb that was SLAIN!

Brother Mark
Jun 11th 2008, 11:53 PM
But it's the biblical view. John Piper preached on this at New Horizon in Northern Ireland in July, 2006 - the following night, RT Kendall (who was always speaking) was introduced on the platform. When asked what he thought of NH so far, he unhesitatingly answered "John Piper's message last night was quite simply the finest sermon I have ever heard". There was spontaneous applause from all gathered there - and most of them would NOT be Calvinists.

If man had not sinned, God COULD not have shown us the FULL extent of His mercy and grace in Christ, because He wouldn't have needed to come and die - and it's His DEATH that will be the focus in Glory of our worship of the Lamb that was SLAIN! This is simply wrong Nigel. God is not some insane father that has his own best interest above that of his children. God is quite capable of showing us the extent of his love without sin. That is simply a man made doctrine. It makes God the author of sin.

Even the depraved know that a father that poisons his son is evil. Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world but that doesn't mean on a cross. The cross was the outward working of his selflessness that was already in him. He was slain to himself because love is selfless. And God is love.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Redemption is just the beginning. God's purpose for man is far greater than simple redemption. The purpose could be fulfilled without sin or with sin. With sin, redemption is necessary. Without sin, the purpose can still be fulfilled.

alethos
Jun 11th 2008, 11:54 PM
I have been to many churches including presbyterian, baptist, pentecostal, etc. I have rubbed elbows with arminian and calvinist alike. But on this board I have begun to see a view of God that is rather distressing. Some have pushed a view of God that makes him into a selfish and self centered being. But that's not the purpose of this thread. Here is what is amazing to me.

Some have preached that God purposed for Adam to sin so that God could reveal his great love to all of creation. Now think about this. Let's say a dad poisoned his son in order to kill his kidneys. Then lets say that same dad gave his kidneys to his boy in order to save his life so that he could bring glory and praise to himself for his sacrifice and goodness, we would have that man locked up! We would consider him crazy and a murderer.

Yet, this is the view that some have of God. That he willed Adam to be poisoned through sin so that he would die. Then God could be the hero and save Adam by giving his own life.

It's a bad view of God in my opinion.

Strange isn't it that God put a tree in the middle of the garden and then placed Adam there and then God commanded Adam not to eat of the very tree which He really intended Adam to eat of. And then punished Adam for doing exactly what He intended for Him to do which was to disobey the command not to eat.

In other words God gives commands which He really wills for us to disobey.

Are you buying this line of theology?

Because I'm not.

.

Brother Mark
Jun 11th 2008, 11:57 PM
Strange isn't it that God put a tree in the middle of the garden and then placed Adam there and then God commanded Adam not to eat of the very tree which He really intended Adam to eat of. And then punished Adam for doing exactly what He intended for Him to do which was to disobey the command not to eat.

In other words God gives commands which He really wills for us to disobey.

Are you buying this line of theology?

Because I'm not..

Nope. It doesn't even come close to being scriptural. God is not internally conflicted to where he wills himself to go against his internal desires. Nor is God so self absorbed that he needs people to burn in hell to properly receive glory.

9Marksfan
Jun 12th 2008, 12:23 AM
This is simply wrong Nigel. God is not some insane father that has his own best interest above that of his children. God is quite capable of showing us the extent of his love without sin. That is simply a man made doctrine. It makes God the author of sin.

Mark, I'm afraid YOU are the one who is wrong. Think about it - if God could show us the full extent of His love woithout sin and redeeming us from it, then why permit it in the first place?


Even the depraved know that a father that poisons his son is evil.

But God DIDN'T make Adam sin! He allowed him to do so - even you will accept that, right? Wouldn't depraved man say that it was evil for a father who COULD have intervened to stop it NOT to have done so?


Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world but that doesn't mean on a cross. The cross was the outward working of his selflessness that was already in him. He was slain to himself because love is selfless. And God is love.

No - sphazo doesn't just mean to be killed - it means to be slaughtered - a sacrificial death - it's clearly the cross that is in mind.


I have said it before and I'll say it again. Redemption is just the beginning. God's purpose for man is far greater than simple redemption. The purpose could be fulfilled without sin or with sin. With sin, redemption is necessary. Without sin, the purpose can still be fulfilled.

I'm really saddened that you belittle redemption so much, Mark - it's clear from many Scriptures that redemption in the fullest sense IS God's ultimate purpose for man - and that INCLUDES all the things that you think are separate from redemption - like redemption of the image of God in us - accomplished through our transformation into Christlikeness!

9Marksfan
Jun 12th 2008, 12:26 AM
Strange isn't it that God put a tree in the middle of the garden and then placed Adam there and then God commanded Adam not to eat of the very tree which He really intended Adam to eat of. And then punished Adam for doing exactly what He intended for Him to do which was to disobey the command not to eat.

In other words God gives commands which He really wills for us to disobey.

Are you buying this line of theology?

Because I'm not.

.

God is all-knowing, so he knew Adam would sin.

God is all-poweful, so He could have stopped Adam sinning.

There is wisdom and purpose in all God does.

So there was wisdom and purpose in God electing not to prevent the Fall.

Therefore it furthered God's plans.

Yet He is not the author of sin.

9Marksfan
Jun 12th 2008, 12:27 AM
Nor is God so self absorbed that he needs people to burn in hell to properly receive glory.

Then how is His perfect justice ever going to be displayed?

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 12:31 AM
Yet He is not the author of sin.
I beg to differ.

God is the author of all things, since He is the Creator of all things.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 12:32 AM
Mark, I'm afraid YOU are the one who is wrong. Think about it - if God could show us the full extent of His love woithout sin and redeeming us from it, then why permit it in the first place?

I have thought long and hard about it. Because in his purpose of making man like Jesus, man had to learn to be slain as well. Just as Jesus was slain must also be slain. He had to learn the cross. He had to learn to say no to self. Thus, the tree was placed in the garden where man could say no and begin the work of the cross. He said yes to the tree so God had to send a second Adam to do it right.


But God DIDN'T make Adam sin! He allowed him to do so - even you will accept that, right? Wouldn't depraved man say that it was evil for a father who COULD have intervened to stop it NOT to have done so?

If Adam had a choice, sure I will accept he chose it. However, I will not accept that God ordained Adam to sin. For then Adam had no choice.


No - sphazo doesn't just mean to be killed - it means to be slaughtered - a sacrificial death - it's clearly the cross that is in mind.

There was no cross before the foundations of the world. He was slaughtered to himself. He was alive to God.


I'm really saddened that you belittle redemption so much, Mark - it's clear from many Scriptures that redemption in the fullest sense IS God's ultimate purpose for man - and that INCLUDES all the things that you think are separate from redemption - like redemption of the image of God in us - accomplished through our transformation into Christlikeness!

I don't belittle it Nigel. I see it as the birth. It is a start. Redemption gets the ball rolling. What is sad is that people can't see past redemption to the fullness of God's purpose for man.

Redemption doesn't change me into Christ likeness. It begins the process. Man must see past redemption into the fullness of God's plan. Redemption is milk. There is much, much more to God than just redemption. Redemption is only necessary because Adam sinned.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 12:34 AM
Then how is His perfect justice ever going to be displayed?

Through doing justly! God's complaint with the pharisee is they weren't just. Do right things. His justice could be displayed through doing what is right. Besides all that, why the need for his wrath to be displayed? I don't think God so needy nor proud as to need to display his wrath.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 12:35 AM
God is all-knowing, so he knew Adam would sin.

God is all-poweful, so He could have stopped Adam sinning.

There is wisdom and purpose in all God does.

So there was wisdom and purpose in God electing not to prevent the Fall.

Therefore it furthered God's plans.

Yet He is not the author of sin.


It didn't further his plans else he would have been the author of sin. If he simply foreknew, that is one thing. If he ordained, that is another. It didn't modify his purpose that Adam sinned. But redemption became necessary where it wasn't before.

As I said above, God is not so egotistical that he poisoned Adam to fully display himself.

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 12:40 AM
If Adam had a choice, sure I will accept he chose it. However, I will not accept that God ordained Adam to sin. For then Adam had no choice.




Actually, God only gave Adam a single choice to make.

The only rule was, 'don't eat from that one particular tree'.
Everything else was peachy keen.

And since Adam was given freedom of choice, there was only one choice to be made.
To eat or not to eat the fruit of one particular tree, which probably was not distinguishable in any other way from any other fruit tree.


And given the nature of curiosity, well, the end was a given.

It was a setup from before the beginning.

moonglow
Jun 12th 2008, 12:42 AM
Brother Mark;
The Calvinist view of God...
I have been to many churches including presbyterian, baptist, pentecostal, etc. I have rubbed elbows with arminian and calvinist alike. But on this board I have begun to see a view of God that is rather distressing. Some have pushed a view of God that makes him into a selfish and self centered being. But that's not the purpose of this thread. Here is what is amazing to me.

Some have preached that God purposed for Adam to sin so that God could reveal his great love to all of creation. Now think about this. Let's say a dad poisoned his son in order to kill his kidneys. Then lets say that same dad gave his kidneys to his boy in order to save his life so that he could bring glory and praise to himself for his sacrifice and goodness, we would have that man locked up! We would consider him crazy and a murderer.

Yet, this is the view that some have of God. That he willed Adam to be poisoned through sin so that he would die. Then God could be the hero and save Adam by giving his own life.

It's a bad view of God in my opinion.

I happen to agree with you Brother Mark on this...it was all freewill. The way I see it in order for us to even be able to freely choose to love God...or freely choose to reject Him..we had to have choices from the beginning. If there was no tree to even make the wrong choice at all...then our options just aren't there at all! There is no freedom at all in that. And with no freedom is no ability to choose either. The idea God would make Adam sin then punish him for it, just makes no sense at all. That would be like me telling my son to pick something up off the floor then when he did ground him for it...there is nothing to indicate in the bible that God made man sin at all.

God bless

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 12:45 AM
The idea God would make Adam sin then punish him for it, just makes no sense at all.
That's the thing, though.

He didn't make Adam sin - He just made sure Adam would, by the nature of that single choice to be made.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 12:51 AM
That's the thing, though.

He didn't make Adam sin - He just made sure Adam would, by the nature of that single choice to be made.

No he didn't Duane. Adam could have said no. He didn't have sin nature. He was pure. He could have eaten of the Tree of Life and passed the test.

FollowTheBanner
Jun 12th 2008, 12:53 AM
I don't think God made Adam sin. He just knew that he would and didn't stop it from happening.

BrckBrln
Jun 12th 2008, 12:56 AM
I don't think God made Adam sin. He just knew that he would and didn't stop it from happening.

Why not though? Surely God 'foresaw' that the world would be a better place if Adam never sinned? So why did God not stop it?

moonglow
Jun 12th 2008, 12:57 AM
That's the thing, though.

He didn't make Adam sin - He just made sure Adam would, by the nature of that single choice to be made.

How do you figure he only had one choice? He could have chosen to NOT eat the fruit...he had two choices...

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 02:12 AM
How do you figure he only had one choice? He could have chosen to NOT eat the fruit...he had two choices...

No, a single choice encompasses two paths.

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 02:14 AM
No he didn't Duane. Adam could have said no. He didn't have sin nature. He was pure. He could have eaten of the Tree of Life and passed the test.
If Adam had no nature to sin and was so pure, he would never have sinned. It simply would not have been in him to do so.


That he sinned proves that he had sin nature from his forming.

moonglow
Jun 12th 2008, 02:18 AM
No, a single choice encompasses two paths.

Duane I have no idea that means. Lets say I have alot of food in the house and I tell my son he can eat any of it he wants, except this one thing...he has alot of choices there...there is no reason for him to eat this one thing. Adam had alot of other foods to eat...it wasn't like this was his only source of food so he really had no choice but to eat of it. Sure he did! And it wasn't even the only tree either. Of course I realize this was not really a source of food..just giving an example. Two choices here..take the fruit and eat it ..or not. We make choices like this every day...either do what we know we shouldn't do...or not do it. Two choices...

God bless

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 02:25 AM
Duane I have no idea that means. Lets say I have alot of food in the house and I tell my son he can eat any of it he wants, except this one thing...he has alot of choices there...there is no reason for him to eat this one thing. Adam had alot of other foods to eat...it wasn't like this was his only source of food so he really had no choice but to eat of it. Sure he did! And it wasn't even the only tree either. Of course I realize this was not really a source of food..just giving an example. Two choices here..take the fruit and eat it ..or not. We make choices like this every day...either do what we know we shouldn't do...or not do it. Two choices...

God bless
The choice is the fork in the road.
Do you go left or right?

That is a single choice.


God put but one restriction on Adam - which presented him with but one choice.

That each choice is comprised of two sides, does not make two choices.
It is either/or - not either and or.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 02:43 AM
If Adam had no nature to sin and was so pure, he would never have sinned. It simply would not have been in him to do so.


That he sinned proves that he had sin nature from his forming.

Wrong. That's why Jesus was called the second Adam. He didn't have a sin nature either. All were condemned in Adam because Adam sinned. He was changed when he sinned.

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 02:56 AM
Wrong. That's why Jesus was called the second Adam. He didn't have a sin nature either. All were condemned in Adam because Adam sinned. He was changed when he sinned.
Sorry, I don't agree.

He didn't change when he sinned, he sinned because he had it within himself to sin.

And since Jesus was able to be tempted, He also had the same sin nature.
He overcame it however, whereas Adam failed.

Ashley274
Jun 12th 2008, 03:59 AM
This is a good post. I can see all points and views. I am going to enjoy reading this for some time.

9Marksfan
Jun 12th 2008, 08:12 AM
How do you figure he only had one choice? He could have chosen to NOT eat the fruit...he had two choices...

A choice IS two options! :B

9Marksfan
Jun 12th 2008, 08:15 AM
If Adam had no nature to sin and was so pure, he would never have sinned. It simply would not have been in him to do so.


That he sinned proves that he had sin nature from his forming.

No - as theologians have said of Adam and Eve's nature pre-Fall, it was posse non peccare - it was possible for them NOT to sin - but once they chose to, God's curse came upon them - and all of us as well - so that, by nature, for all of us, it is a case of non posse non peccare - it's NOT possible for us NOT to sin.

9Marksfan
Jun 12th 2008, 08:20 AM
Sorry, I don't agree.

He didn't change when he sinned, he sinned because he had it within himself to sin.

And since Jesus was able to be tempted, He also had the same sin nature.
He overcame it however, whereas Adam failed.

Where do you find any verse in Scripture that says that Jesus had a sin nature - these verses teach otherwise:-

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathise with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:15 NKJV

For such a high priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens. Heb 7:26 NKJV

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 10:14 AM
No - as theologians have said of Adam and Eve's nature pre-Fall, it was posse non peccare - it was possible for them NOT to sin - but once they chose to, God's curse came upon them - and all of us as well - so that, by nature, for all of us, it is a case of non posse non peccare - it's NOT possible for us NOT to sin.
I don't really care what theologians have said.

The fact is, Adam sinned.

It can be argued till the cows come home, but nothing will change the fact that Adam was given one single choice, and he chose to do what he wanted instead of what he was told to do. Adam became independant - an individual with self awareness and freedom to choose on his own terms.

He did exactly as God wished and designed him to do.


And if you say that it is not possible for us not to sin because of what Adam did, I will point out that Jesus was tempted in every way - yet did not sin.
And we, on occasion, will turn away from sinning as well.
So it IS possible for us to NOT sin.

And yet, you (or others) say that Adam and Jesus were identical in being without a sin nature?
Hah!

If one does not have a sin nature, one can not be tempted.
Period.


And in fact, unless one sins one can not know or excercise free will - especially if the one is only given a single option to excercise that free will.

Jesus did what none of us has done.
He, from the beginning, gave up His free will in favor of the Father's will.

He is a total slave to the Father, for all our sakes.


But to deny that Jesus was born with the same sin nature as all of us, well, that reduces His struggles and sacrifice to be simply meaningless.
Because if He did not have our sin nature, then He was not really tempted in all things as scripture states. (nor was He 100% man (and we all consider Him to be both 100% man as well as 100% God, do we not?) - can't have it both ways)
And if He was not really tempted in all things, as scripture states, then He did not overcome one dam* thing.

CRNA
Jun 12th 2008, 11:06 AM
That's the thing, though.

He didn't make Adam sin - He just made sure Adam would, by the nature of that single choice to be made.

Duane,

I dont agree with this statement at all. "He just made sure Adam would"? I dont think so.

CRNA
Jun 12th 2008, 11:10 AM
If Adam had no nature to sin and was so pure, he would never have sinned. It simply would not have been in him to do so.


That he sinned proves that he had sin nature from his forming.


God could have made everything permissible in the garden, but then where would love be? He enabled Adam to reveal his love to the Father by either being obedient or not. Love isnt giving your son or daughter everything there is and allowing them to float by life with no problems or hard decisions to make to build character and good/bad judgement.

By placing the Tree of forbidden fruit in the Garden, God allowed His creation to be tested, He didnt force His creation to sin, He allowed the garden to have the most non-biased form or atmosphere to test His creation and develop a pure loving relationship with Adam. True love is strengthened through trials. Adam, unfortunately, failed at this step in their relationship. But God knew both outcomes of either path and made a way to restore the relationship.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 02:21 PM
No - as theologians have said of Adam and Eve's nature pre-Fall, it was posse non peccare - it was possible for them NOT to sin - but once they chose to, God's curse came upon them - and all of us as well - so that, by nature, for all of us, it is a case of non posse non peccare - it's NOT possible for us NOT to sin.

You are correct in that man cannot conquer sin prior to being saved. That doesn't mean all he does is sin, in the sense that it is bad words. It does man that all he does is without faith and whatever is not of faith, is sin.

However the reason I started this thread was to make sure folks new that many Calvinist are pushing a view of God that is way out there. They make God into some egotistical being that actually makes someone sick in order to make him well, for his own glory! You would rightly put a mom behind bars that did to her child what many accuse God of doing to Adam.

Duane Morse
Jun 12th 2008, 08:52 PM
Duane,

I dont agree with this statement at all. "He just made sure Adam would"? I dont think so.
Before God created Adam, He knew Adam would make the choice that he made.

grit
Jun 12th 2008, 10:32 PM
Anyone who's read Isaiah 6:1-8 has seen the Calvinist's view of God.

Brother Mark
Jun 12th 2008, 10:35 PM
Anyone who's read Isaiah 6:1-8 has seen the Calvinist's view of God.

Just for the record, here's the scripture reference.

Isa 6:1-7

6 In the year of King, Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called out to another and said,

"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,,
The whole earth is full of His glory."

4 And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. 5 Then I said,

"Woe is me, for I am ruined!,
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I live among a people of unclean lips;,
For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. 7 And he touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven."
NASB

This describes a view of God we can all shout AMEN to.

Gadgeteer
Feb 19th 2016, 09:10 PM
I have been to many churches including presbyterian, baptist, pentecostal, etc. I have rubbed elbows with arminian and calvinist alike. But on this board I have begun to see a view of God that is rather distressing. Some have pushed a view of God that makes him into a selfish and self centered being. But that's not the purpose of this thread. Here is what is amazing to me.

Some have preached that God purposed for Adam to sin so that God could reveal his great love to all of creation. Now think about this. Let's say a dad poisoned his son in order to kill his kidneys. Then lets say that same dad gave his kidneys to his boy in order to save his life so that he could bring glory and praise to himself for his sacrifice and goodness, we would have that man locked up! We would consider him crazy and a murderer.

Yet, this is the view that some have of God. That he willed Adam to be poisoned through sin so that he would die. Then God could be the hero and save Adam by giving his own life.

It's a bad view of God in my opinion.Not just your opinion; in Matt12:25-31, Pharisees (trying to save face) accused Jesus of collaborating with satan in His casting out of demons; that was to call the Holy Spirit, "evil". Jesus became white hot furious at the offense, calling it "UNFORGIVABLE BLASPHEMY".

There are so many facets to the dark gem of Calvinism -- one, is that no Calvinist can claim anything different than what those in Luke8:13 claimed at first --- that is, there is NOTHING anyone can say NOW to affirm "truly-saved", that those in Lk8:13 didn't also say. It was only PERSEVERANCE which proved who was "truly-elected" (like those in Lk8:15), or who was "cruelly-rejected" like those in verse 13 who only THOUGHT they were saved but proved God didn't really love or want them BY FALLING AWAY...

Despite the protests, no Calvinist can know he's (or she's!) actually saved, until the very last breath they breathe on Earth.


God is not some insane father that has his own best interest above that of his children. God is quite capable of showing us the extent of his love without sin. That is simply a man made doctrine. It makes God the author of sin.

Even the depraved know that a father that poisons his son is evil."Insanity", "hypocrisy", "hatred" and "false-judging" and full "unrighteousness" all have to be characteristics of the Calvinistic God. John tells us "GOD IS LOVE" --- exactly what is God for those whom He created to be sinful, TO BE HATED and to perish with zero chance of escape?

And what is God for those whom He LOBOTOMIZES into loving Him back (what does that make the command of Deut6:5 & Matt22:37, "You shall LOVE the Lord your God with all you are")?

You are 100% right; Calvinism charges God with authoring sin. Doesn't matter if He does it DIRECTLY (as "double-predestination" claims, misunderstanding verses like Acts4:28), or if He does it INDIRECTLY by simply ignoring them to their inescapable demise; either way their wickedness is GOD'S SOVEREIGN WILL.


"Cast away from yourselves your sins, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die? I take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies (declares the Lord God) --- therefore REPENT AND LIVE!!!" Ezk18:31-32

What stronghold is it to ignore such simplicity in Scripture, and cling to a God-insulting, character-impugning, ZERO-ETERNAL-SECURITY doctrine?

:dunno:

Gadgeteer
Feb 19th 2016, 09:15 PM
Strange isn't it that God put a tree in the middle of the garden and then placed Adam there and then God commanded Adam not to eat of the very tree which He really intended Adam to eat of. And then punished Adam for doing exactly what He intended for Him to do which was to disobey the command not to eat.

In other words God gives commands which He really wills for us to disobey.

Are you buying this line of theology?

Because I'm not.

God commands all men to love Him (Matt22:37), He commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts17:30). And these are commands He expects us to OBEY.

To those who think "God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden ordaining for A&E to eat" --- oh yeah? Why'd He put the OTHER tree there?

Gadgeteer
Feb 19th 2016, 09:22 PM
Yet He is not the author of sin.I beg to differ.

God is the author of all things, since He is the Creator of all things.

John says (1:3:5) "In Him THERE IS NO SIN".

But God intends for us to believe that He authored sin.
AND that He runs this great "Final Judgment", judging MEN for sin THAT HE CREATED.

No, the truth is in verses like Ezk28:15:


"You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was FOUND in you."

What's the point of holding a doctrine which FORGETS verses like Genesis1:31?

"God saw all He had made and EVERYTHING was GOOD!"


Ohhhh, no that is NOT what Genesis 1:31 says --- it says "Everything He had made was VERY good!"

Everything. God created NOTHING bad, or evil, or sinful. He is incapable of that. He cannot go against His character!

Gadgeteer
Feb 19th 2016, 09:26 PM
Wrong. That's why Jesus was called the second Adam. He didn't have a sin nature either. All were condemned in Adam because Adam sinned. He was changed when he sinned.

Exactly. That mankind was ABLE to sin, screams "free will".

Now --- exactly what did Paul mean in 2Cor11:3, when he said "we have the SAME risk of deception-away-from-Jesus, as EVE experienced in the Garden???

:eek:

hoghead1
Mar 24th 2016, 09:49 AM
It is true many churches hold the notion of predestination. However, they are generally the more conservative ones. I work out of a very liberal Christianity and no, we don't hold with predestination, largely for the reasons you stated.













I have been to many churches including presbyterian, baptist, pentecostal, etc. I have rubbed elbows with arminian and calvinist alike. But on this board I have begun to see a view of God that is rather distressing. Some have pushed a view of God that makes him into a selfish and self centered being. But that's not the purpose of this thread. Here is what is amazing to me.

Some have preached that God purposed for Adam to sin so that God could reveal his great love to all of creation. Now think about this. Let's say a dad poisoned his son in order to kill his kidneys. Then lets say that same dad gave his kidneys to his boy in order to save his life so that he could bring glory and praise to himself for his sacrifice and goodness, we would have that man locked up! We would consider him crazy and a murderer.

Yet, this is the view that some have of God. That he willed Adam to be poisoned through sin so that he would die. Then God could be the hero and save Adam by giving his own life.

It's a bad view of God in my opinion.

Geoff Primanti
Apr 2nd 2016, 06:23 AM
In giving His creation free will He made it inevitable that something in His creation would eventually sin. And He foreknew that this would be the case. Therefore, it might be said that in a sense God is the author of sin in that He is the author of free will; and not the author of sin in that he only authored the capability of sinning in that there was the freedom to sin in His creation: and therefore He authored the capability of sinning but did not go so far as to force anyone to cross the line. Therefore the one sinning is responsible and not the one who gave them free will. Because if their free will enables them to sin, it also enables them not to sin. Therefore every sinner is responsible for his own sin.

Geoff Primanti
Apr 2nd 2016, 06:28 AM
God knew that going to the Cross Himself would be the price to pay for creating people and things with the capacity for free will; and He chose to do it anyway.

It is not that He poisoned Adam; it is that He gave Adam the freedom to choose to disobey Him and eat poison.

The first time around it was pride; the second time around Adam ate the fruit of the tree of the knowdledge of good and evil. God made it clear the second time around that to disobey Him is the same as eating poison after being told not to.

RogerW
Apr 2nd 2016, 12:02 PM
God knew that going to the Cross Himself would be the price to pay for creating people and things with the capacity for free will; and He chose to do it anyway.

It is not that He poisoned Adam; it is that He gave Adam the freedom to choose to disobey Him and eat poison.

The first time around it was pride; the second time around Adam ate the fruit of the tree of the knowdledge of good and evil. God made it clear the second time around that to disobey Him is the same as eating poison after being told not to.

You seem to see clearly how that total unharnessed autonomy in mankind leads to sin, and death through sin. Can you also see how the fall of mankind that plunged all of creation into death, changed the autonomy man was created with? Before the fall mankind was given the freedom to choose to eat of the tree of life and live forever. From the fall man is no longer able of his own will to choose to eat of the tree of life [Christ] and live forever. It is the will of God that mankind eat of Christ, therefore He provides all that is necessary for man to eat of Christ and live forever. He does this through the gospel, as it is proclaimed unto all the nations of the earth in the mighty power of His Spirit. The message about Christ, the Savior is freely offered to every man, and through the power of the Spirit everlasting life is given to whosoever believe.

Joh*1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Many Blessings,
RW