# Decreeing Adam to sin



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 21, 2004)

How would you answer this?

&quot;Did God decree to [b:fec55d6c03]allow[/b:fec55d6c03] Adam to sin, or did He decree that Adam [b:fec55d6c03]would[/b:fec55d6c03] sin?&quot;

Someone emailed me and wanted me to post this...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Allow.
[i:f4ae4ef5d1]Allowing[/i:f4ae4ef5d1] makes the sinner responsible. It doesn't necessarily mean that Adam would in fact fall. Decreeing that Adam [i:f4ae4ef5d1]would[/i:f4ae4ef5d1] sin is determinable. He [b:f4ae4ef5d1]will[/b:f4ae4ef5d1] sin; it is decreed that he would.

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JWJ (Apr 21, 2004)

I do not like the word "allow" as it many times is interpreted as mere permission-- "permission theology" is the theology of Arminianism and the Free Willism theodicy. I just say God decreed Adam to sin. I am not even afraid (as many reformed pastors and teachers are) to say that God caused Adam to sin.

JWJ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Jim,
Are you implying Adam did not have free will? Do you not have free will?

~Trick question

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Dan.... (Apr 21, 2004)

[quote:3d671c44aa]
&quot;Did God decree to allow Adam to sin, or did He decree that Adam would sin?&quot; 
[/quote:3d671c44aa]

Both. To allow is to decree.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 21, 2004)

Free will is the ability to freely choose that which one desires the most. God may decree (making him the first cause) without doing violence to Adam's free agency. I'm with Jim on this one. (Sorry Jim, I didn't mean to answer the question that was directed to you. I look forward to your reply. :bs2


----------



## Saiph (Apr 21, 2004)

I prefer to say God created Adam to fall.

The lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.
Who was He slain for if God did not intend the fall ? ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Alot of people confuse Gods power in choosing us unto salvation and mans will to choose. Adam had -choice-; he chose to sin. The scriptures show that Adam walked with God in the garden. He was w/ God. I am a regenerate man, also walking w/ the Lord, yet I still rebel (at times). I choose to be disobedient. Do I have free will? Yes! Did I have free will in coming to God. No, God decreed that I was elect before the foundation of the world. He chose me and I had no choice but respond in like manner as Paul.


----------



## cupotea (Apr 21, 2004)

Considering the above views that God made Adam sin, how would you reconcile the following?

(James 1:13-14)
[13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: [14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 

To justify your views, wouldn't God have to tempt Adam to sin or did he allow Adam to be tempted by Satan as He did with Job?


----------



## JWJ (Apr 21, 2004)

Scott,

It depends what you mean by free will. If you mean by free will the ability to make choices based on my strongest desires, then I would say yes I (we) have it. However, this definition does nothing to point out the error of many and the crux of the issue.

I prefer to use a definition of free will that gives one the whole picture of sin and God's Sovereignty. For example, I don't play the game many Reformed teachers and preachers play by only emphasizing post fall will bondage. Many only stress that man does not have free will after the fall because of the bondage of sin. Though this is true this is not the whole picture. The other half is God's sovereign decree. When one gets down to it, today's common idea of free will that is at odds with the Bible, is - man's choices are free from the bondage of sin and free from God's Sovereign decree. 

Based on my supplied definition, Adam, though he was free from the bondage of sin, did not have free will because he was not free from God's Sovereign decree. I agree with Luther that we should drop the term free will.

JWJ


----------



## cupotea (Apr 21, 2004)

Here is where I always want to launch into a rendition of Mary Poppins, SupraCaliFragIlistic...

I'm with Beza and most others here. God decreed.


----------



## Saiph (Apr 21, 2004)

Calvin from the Institutes Book 1:


[quote:83769aec0b]
[b:83769aec0b]Chapter 18. The instrumentality of the wicked employed by God, while He continues free from every taint.[/b:83769aec0b]

This last chapter of the First Book consists of three parts: 
I. It having been said above that God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will, three objections are started. First, that this happens by the permission, not by the will of God. To this objection there is a twofold reply, the one, that angels and men, good and bad, do nothing but what is appointed by God; the second, that all movements are secretly directed to their end by the hidden inspiration of God, sec. 1, 2. 

II. A second objection is, that there are two contrary wills in God, if by a secret counsel he decrees what he openly prohibits by his law. This objection refuted, sec. 3. 

III. The third objection is, that God is made the author of all wickedness, when he is said not only to use the agency of the wicked, but also to govern their counsels and affections, and that therefore the wicked are unjustly punished. This objection refuted in the last section.
Sections

1. The carnal mind the source of the objections which are raised against the Providence of God. A primary objection, making a distinction between the permission and the will of God, refuted. Angels and men, good and bad, do nought but what has been decreed by God. This proved by examples.

2. All hidden movements directed to their end by the unseen but righteous instigation of God. Examples, with answers to objections.

3. These objections originate in a spirit of pride and blasphemy. Objection, that there must be two contrary wills in God, refuted. Why the one simple will of God seems to us as if it were manifold.

4. Objection, that God is the author of sin, refuted by examples. Augustine's answer and admonition.

1. From other passages, in which God is said to draw or bend Satan himself, and all the reprobate, to his will, a more difficult question arises. For the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how, when acting by their means, he contracts no taint from their impurity, nay, how, in a common operation, he is exempt from all guilt, and can justly condemn his own ministers. Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his judgements. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not endeavour to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture. What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the actions of men. If God is the arbiter of peace and war, as is there said, and that without any exception, who will venture to say that men are borne along at random with a blind impulse, while He is unconscious or quiescent? But the matter will be made clearer by special examples. From the first chapter of Job we learn that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his orders, just as do the angels who obey spontaneously. The manner and the end are different, but still the fact is, that he cannot attempt anything without the will of God. But though afterwards his power to afflict the saint seems to be only a bare permission, yet as the sentiment is true, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it has been done," we infer that God was the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments. Satan's aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans cruelly and wickedly make a sudden incursion to rob another of his goods. Job acknowledges that he was deprived of all his property, and brought to poverty, because such was the pleasure of God. Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of his judgements. God wills that the perfidious Ahab should be deceived; the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent with a definite command to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets (1Ki_22:20-22). If the blinding and infatuation of Ahab is a judgment from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he wishes to be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it to his ministers. The Jews purposed to destroy Christ. Pilate and the soldiers indulged them in their fury; yet the disciples confess in solemn prayer that all the wicked did nothing but what the hand and counsel of God had decreed (Act_4:28), just as Peter had previously said in his discourse, that Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (Act_2:23); in other words, that God, to whom all things are known from the beginning, had determined what the Jews had executed. He repeats the same thing elsewhere, "Those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled" (Act_3:18). Absalom incestuously defiling his father's bed, perpetrates a detestable crime. God, however, declares that it was his work; for the words are, "Thou midst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun." The cruelties of the Chaldeans in Judea are declared by Jeremiah to be the work of God. For which reason, Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God. God frequently exclaims, that by his hiss, by the clang of his trumpet, by his authority and command, the wicked are excited to war. He calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger, and the axe which he wields in his hand. The overthrow of the city and downfall of the temple, he calls his own work. David, not murmuring against God, but acknowledging him to be a just judge, confesses that the curses of Shimei are uttered by his orders. "The Lord," says he, "has bidden him curse." Often in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the Lord, as the revolt of the ten tribes, the death of Eli's sons, and very many others of a similar description. Those who have a tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to brevity, I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which it is perfectly clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for the providence of God, as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his judgements meanwhile depending on the will of man.

2. With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees meet, certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same force as if he had said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God. And certainly, did he not work internally in the minds of men, it could not have been properly said, that he takes away the lip from the true, and prudence from the aged - takes away the heart from the princes of the earth, that they wander through devious paths. To the same effect, we often read that men are intimidated when He fills their hearts with terror. Thus David left the camp of Saul while none knew of its because a sleep from God had fallen upon all. But nothing can be clearer than the many passages which declare, that he blinds the minds of men, and smites them with giddiness, intoxicates them with a spirit of stupor, renders them infatuated, and hardens their hearts. Even these expressions many would confine to permissions as if, by deserting the reprobate, he allowed them to be blinded by Satan. But since the Holy Spirit distinctly says, that the blindness and infatuation are inflicted by the just judgment of God, the solution is altogether inadmissible. He is said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh, to have hardened it yet more, and confirmed it. Some evade these forms of expression by a silly cavil, because Pharaoh is elsewhere said to have hardened his own heart, thus making his will the cause of hardening it; as if the two things did not perfectly agree with each other, though in different senses viz., that man, though acted upon by God, at the same time also acts. But I retort the objection on those who make it. If to harden means only bare permission, the contumacy will not properly belong to Pharaoh. Now, could any thing be more feeble and insipid than to interpret as if Pharaoh had only allowed himself to be hardened? We may add, that Scripture cuts off all handle for such cavils: "I," saith the Lord, "will harden his heart" (Exo_4:21). So also, Moses says of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, that they went forth to battle because the Lord had hardened their hearts (Jos_11:20). The same thing is repeated by another prophet, "He turned their hearts to hate his people" (Psa_105:25). In like manner, in Isaiah, he says of the Assyrian, "I will send him against a hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge to take the spoil, and to take the prey" (Isa_10:6); not that he intends to teach wicked and obstinate man to obey spontaneously, but because he bends them to execute his judgements, just as if they carried their orders engraven on their minds. And hence it appears that they are impelled by the sure appointment of God. I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan himself performs his part, just as he is impelled, and succeeds only in so far as he is permitted. The evil spirit that troubled Saul is said to be from the Lord (1Sa_16:14), to intimate that Saul's madness was a just punishment from God. Satan is also said to blind the minds of those who believe not (2Co_4:4). But how so, unless that a spirit of error is sent from God himself, making those who refuse to obey the truth to believe a lie? According to the former view, it is said, "If the prophet be deceived when he has spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet" (Eze_14:9). According to the latter view, he is said to have given men over to a reprobate mind (Rom_1:28), because he is the special author of his own just vengeance; whereas Satan is only his minister (see Calv. in Ps. 141:4). But as in the Second Book (Chap. 4: sec. 3, 4), in discussing the question of man's freedom, this subject will again be considered, the little that has now been said seems to be all that the occasion requires. The sum of the whole is this: since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces the reprobate to do him service.

3. As I have hitherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously taught in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God - to say, for instance, "I think otherwise," - "I would not have this subject touched?" But if they openly blaspheme, what will they gain by assaulting heaven? Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine. But what the Spirit declared of old by the mouth of David (Psa_51:4), they will feel by experience to be true - God will overcome when he is judged. David indirectly rebukes the infatuation of those whose license is so unbridled, that from their grovelling spot of earth they not only plead against God, but arrogate to themselves the right of censuring him. At the same time, he briefly intimates that the blasphemies which they belch forth against heaven, instead of reaching God, only illustrate his justice, when the mists of their calumnies are dispersed. Even our faith, because founded on the sacred word of God, is superior to the whole world, and is able from its height to look down upon such mists.
Their first objection - that if nothing happens without the will of God, he must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret counsel what he has openly forbidden in his law - is easily disposed of. But before I reply to it, I would again remind my readers, that this cavil is directed not against me, but against the Holy Spirit, who certainly dictated this confession to that holy man Job, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away," when, after being plundered by robbers, he acknowledges that their injustice and mischief was a just chastisement from God. And what says the Scripture elsewhere? The sons of Eli "hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them" (1Sa_2:25). Another prophet also exclaims, "Our God is in the heavens: he has done whatsoever he has pleased" (Psa_115:3). I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isa_45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amo_3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him (Deu_19:5), so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Act_4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing. Paul terms the calling of the Gentiles a hidden mystery, and shortly after adds, that therein was manifested the manifold wisdom of God (Eph_3:10). Since, on account of the dullness of our sense, the wisdom of God seems manifold (or, as an old interpreter rendered it, multiform), are we, therefore, to dream of some variation in God, as if he either changed his counsel, or disagreed with himself? Nay, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause termed inaccessible (1Ti_6:16), because shrouded in darkness. Hence, all pious and modest men will readily acquiesce in the sentiment of Augustine: "Man sometimes with a good will wishes something which God does not will, as when a good son wishes his father to live, while God wills him to die. Again, it may happen that man with a bad will wishes what God wills righteously, as when a bad son wishes his father to die, and God also wills it. The former wishes what God wills not, the latter wishes what God also wills. And yet the filial affection of the former is more consonant to the good will of God, though willing differently, than the unnatural affection of the latter, though willing the same thing; so much does approbation or condemnation depend on what it is befitting in man, and what in God to will, and to what end the will of each has respect. For the things which God rightly wills, he accomplishes by the evil wills of bad men" (August. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 101). He had said a little before (cap. 100) that the apostate angels, by their revolt, and all the reprobate, as far as they themselves were concerned, did what God willed not; but, in regard to his omnipotence, it was impossible for them to do so: for, while they act against the will of God, his will is accomplished in them. Hence he exclaims, "Great is the work of God, exquisite in all he wills! so that, in a manner wondrous and ineffable, that is not done without his will which is done contrary to it, because it could not be done if he did not permit; nor does he permit it unwillingly, but willingly; nor would He who is good permit evil to be done, were he not omnipotent to bring good out of evil" (Augustin. in Ps. 111:2).

4. In the same way is solved, or rather spontaneously vanishes, another objection, viz., If God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Here "will" is improperly confounded with precept, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them. When Absalom defiled his father's bed, though God was pleased thus to avenge the adultery of David, he did not therefore enjoin an abandoned son to commit incest, unless, perhaps, in respect of David, as David himself says of Shimei's curses. For, while he confesses that Shimei acts by the order of God, he by no means commends the obedience, as if that petulant dog had been yielding obedience to a divine command; but, recognising in his tongue the scourge of God, he submits patiently to be chastised. Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust.
How these things, which men do perversely, are of God, and are ruled by his secret providence, is strikingly shown in the election of King Jeroboam (1Ki_12:20), in which the rashness and infatuation of the people are severely condemned for perverting the order sanctioned by God, and perfidiously revolting from the family of David. And yet we know it was God's will that Jeroboam should be anointed. Hence the apparent contradiction in the words of Hosea (Hos_8:4; Hos_13:11), because, while God complained that that kingdom was erected without his knowledge, and against his will, he elsewhere declares, that he had given King Jeroboam in his anger. How shall we reconcile the two things - that Jeroboam's reign was not of God, and yet God appointed him king? In this way: The people could not revolt from the family of David without shaking off a yoke divinely imposed on them, and yet God himself was not deprived of the power of thus punishing the ingratitude of Solomon. We, therefore, see how God, while not willing treachery, with another view justly wills the revolt; and hence Jeroboam, by unexpectedly receiving the sacred unction, is urged to aspire to the kingdom. For this reason, the sacred history says, that God stirred up an enemy to deprive the son of Solomon of part of the kingdom (1Ki_11:23). Let the reader diligently ponder both points: how, as it was the will of God that the people should be ruled by the hand of one king, their being rent into two parties was contrary to his will; and yet how this same will originated the revolt. For certainly, when Jeroboam, who had no such thought, is urged by the prophet verbally, and by the oil of unction, to hope for the kingdom, the thing was not done without the knowledge or against the will of God, who had expressly commanded it; and yet the rebellion of the people is justly condemned, because it was against the will of God that they revolted from the posterity of David. For this reason, it is afterwards added, that when Rehoboam haughtily spurned the prayers of the people, "the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah" (1Ki_12:15). See how sacred unity was violated against the will of God, while, at the same time, with his will the ten tribes were alienated from the son of Solomon. To this might be added another similar example, viz., the murder of the sons of Ahab, and the extermination of his whole progeny by the consent, or rather the active agency, of the people. Jehu says truly "There shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spake concerning the house of Ahab: for the Lord has done that which he spake by his servant Elijah" (2Ki_10:10). And yet, with good reason, he upbraids the citizens of Samaria for having lent their assistance. "Ye be righteous: behold, I conspired against my master, and slew him, but who slew all these?"
If I mistake not, I have already shown clearly how the same act at once betrays the guilt of man, and manifests the righteousness of God. Modest minds will always be satisfied with Augustine's answer, "Since the Father delivered up the Son, Christ his own body, and Judas his Master, how in such a case is God just, and man guilty, but just because in the one act which they did, the reasons for which they did it are different?" (August. Ep. 48, ad Vincentium). If any are not perfectly satisfied with this explanation, viz., that there is no concurrence between God and man, when by His righteous impulse man does what he ought not to do, let them give heed to what Augustine elsewhere observes: "Who can refrain from trembling at those judgements when God does according to his pleasure even in the hearts of the wicked, at the same time rendering to them according to their deeds?" (De Grat. et lib. Orbit. ad Valent. c. 20). And certainly, in regard to the treachery of Judas, there is just as little ground to throw the blame of the crime upon God, because He was both pleased that his Son should be delivered up to death, and did deliver him, as to ascribe to Judas the praise of our redemption. Hence Augustine, in another place, truly observes, that when God makes his scrutiny, he looks not to what men could do, or to what they did, but to what they wished to do, thus taking account of their will and purpose. Those to whom this seems harsh had better consider how far their captiousness is entitled to any toleration, while, on the ground of its exceeding their capacity, they reject a matter which is clearly taught by Scripture, and complain of the enunciation of truths, which, if they were not useful to be known, God never would have ordered his prophets and apostles to teach. Our true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered. Those who indulge their petulance, a petulance manifestly directed against God, are undeserving of a longer refutation.

[/quote:83769aec0b]


:closed:


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 21, 2004)

First off it's impossible to find an analogy in our experience because this problem is peculiar to only Adam and Lucifer - each were created with holy and God-ward hearts (desires). They were truly righteous in their every inclination and no tug from a fallen nature.

Most probably God righteously witheld his &quot;perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the infinite and fallible attention of the soul against sin.&quot; Dabney 

In this sense God is the cause but not the culpable cause of sin.

Satan and Adam were both mutable and they placed there desires in something besides God. This was not a sin because everything God made was good. The sin took place when the desire for the thing grew stronger than the desire to obey the revealed will of God. This is where the initial sin took place and the soul was corrupted. When we desire something above God's revealed will, that is lust.

Dabney gives the illustation , &quot;to make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone.


----------



## Saiph (Apr 21, 2004)

[quote:83d5fa6085]
Dabney gives the illustation , &quot;to make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone. 
[/quote:83d5fa6085]

If God is not in absolute control of every atomic and subatomic particle in the candle, and the whole created order, then He is not God.

Determinism/Free Will

Diety/Humanity of Christ

Wheels within wheels.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 21, 2004)

Sorry, I shouldn't have taken Dabney's illustration out of context.

&quot;while righteousness is a positive attribute, incipient sin is a privative trait of human conduct. The mere absence of an element of active regard for God's will, constitutes a disposition or volition wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferable that the negative equally demands a positive cause. To make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone.&quot;

It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

[quote:fa71aa74e9][i:fa71aa74e9]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:fa71aa74e9]
[quote:fa71aa74e9]
Dabney gives the illustation , &quot;to make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone. 
[/quote:fa71aa74e9]

If God is not in absolute control of every atomic and subatomic particle in the candle, and the whole created order, then He is not God.

Determinism/Free Will

Diety/Humanity of Christ

Wheels within wheels. [/quote:fa71aa74e9]

Mark,
I do not disagree with what you write. However, God being in control and my choosing to rebel today (for whatever reason) cannot be blamed on God...........



[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph (Apr 21, 2004)

[quote:8c09fd4106]
God being in control and my choosing to rebel today (for whatever reason) cannot be blamed on God........... 

[/quote:8c09fd4106]

I agree with you and Calvin.


There is no tribunal over God.
God cannot ever be guilty of anything.


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Apr 21, 2004)

Scott,

If God decreed something to happen, then then nobody/nothing has power to the contrary. However how does one maintain free will if this power is not present?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Tom,
For lack of a better term, it seems as if my choosing to sin, in the light of Gods decree to complete the work that He has begun in me until the day of Christ Jesus, that is to -sanctify- his people, does not contradict His omnipotence or Lordship in the least when I rebel to sin against Him, hence it is a response by me in the divided sense. The compound sense is that God is omnipotent and man is not. The compound says that Gods will cannot be thwarted. The compound sense is that the work that God began will be completed. The divided sense is that while I am yet a child of God, and have a new heart and the Holy Spirit in me, I may at times still rebel and choose to sin instead of following Gods presence and commands.
We are not puppets..........

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Yes. Thats what I have said in the first post. However Paul, the secondary effects of that freedom, if they are sin, are not tallied to God's account. It is men whom sin, not God. God is NOT the creator of sin.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. 


1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.


----------



## Saiph (Apr 21, 2004)

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 


Sounds like God actively doing something so they will sin more.

Like Pharoah.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of destruction.

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## cupotea (Apr 21, 2004)

[quote:37a5881925]Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].[/quote:37a5881925]


----------



## cupotea (Apr 21, 2004)

*Zounds!*

I didn't see that Paul had already posted Is 45:7. Pardon.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Suzanne, 
So you think that God is the creator of evil? Here is a better interpretation of that passage:

I am the one who forms light and creates darkness;
the one who brings about peace and creates calamity.
I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things. 

For God to be the -literal- creator of evil, it would need to be within His makeup. 1 John says that there is no darkness in HIM.

[color=Red:5d977a1a6a]Evil and sins[/color:5d977a1a6a] are not &quot;things&quot; in and of themselves. They do not exist on their own. Instead, they are the absence of the [color=Blue:5d977a1a6a]good[/color:5d977a1a6a] God made.

God created everything perfect and good. The fall brought evil and sin. 

~I know that the following is slightly cliche and less than sound theologically, but I think it makes the point.


######################################
University Classroom Setting...

&quot;LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ,&quot; The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. &quot;You're a Christian, aren't you, son?&quot; 

&quot;Yes, sir.&quot; 

&quot;So you believe in God?&quot; 

&quot;Absolutely.&quot; 

&quot;Is God good?&quot; 

&quot;Sure! God's good.&quot; 

&quot;Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?&quot; 

&quot;Yes.&quot; 

&quot; Are you good or evil?&quot; 

&quot;The Bible says I'm evil.&quot; 

The professor grins knowingly. &quot;Ahh! THE BIBLE!&quot; He considers for a moment. &quot;Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? &quot;Would you try?&quot; 

&quot;Yes sir, I would.&quot; 

&quot;So you're good...!&quot; 

&quot;I wouldn't say that.&quot; 

&quot;Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't.&quot; [No answer.] 

&quot;He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?&quot; 


[No answer] 

The elderly man is sympathetic. &quot;No, you can't, can you?&quot; He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. &quot;Let's start again, son.&quot; 

&quot;Is God good?&quot; 

&quot;Er... Yes.&quot; 

&quot;Is Satan good?&quot; 

&quot;No.&quot; 

&quot;Where does Satan come from?&quot; 

The student falters. &quot;From... God...&quot; 

&quot;That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?&quot; The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. &quot;I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.&quot; He turns back to the Christian. &quot;Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?&quot; 

&quot;Yes, sir.&quot; 

&quot;Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?&quot; 

&quot;Yes.&quot; 

&quot;Who created evil? 

[No answer] 

&quot;Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All those terrible things - do they exist in this world? &quot; 

The student squirms on his feet. &quot;Yes.&quot; 

&quot;Who created them? &quot; 

[No answer] 

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. &quot;WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!&quot;The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: &quot;God created all evil, didn't He, son?&quot; 

[No answer] 

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. 

&quot;Tell me,&quot; he continues, &quot;How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?&quot; The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. &quot;All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?&quot; 

[No answer] 

&quot;Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?&quot; Pause. 

&quot;Don't you?&quot; The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, &quot;Is God good?&quot; 

[No answer] 

&quot;Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?&quot; 

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. &quot;Yes, professor. I do.&quot; 

The old man shakes his head sadly. &quot;Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Him? &quot; 

&quot;No, sir. I've never seen Him.&quot; 

&quot;Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?&quot; 

&quot;No, sir. I have not.&quot; 

&quot;Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?&quot; 

[No answer] 

&quot;Answer me, please.&quot; 

&quot;No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.&quot; 

&quot;You're AFRAID... you haven't?&quot; 

&quot;No, sir.&quot; 

&quot;Yet you still believe in him?&quot; 

&quot;...yes...&quot; 

&quot;That takes FAITH!&quot; The professor smiles sagely at the underling. &quot;According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?&quot; 

[The student doesn't answer] 

&quot;Sit down, please.&quot; 

The Christian sits...Defeated(?). 

Another Christian raises his hand. &quot;Professor, may I address the class?&quot; 

The professor turns and smiles. &quot;Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.&quot; 

The Christian looks around the room. &quot;Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you if that's okay. Is there such thing as heat?&quot; 

&quot;Yes,&quot; the professor replies, frowning. &quot;There's heat.&quot; 

&quot;Is there such a thing as cold?&quot; 

&quot;Yes, son, there's cold too.&quot; 

&quot;No, sir, there isn't.&quot; 

The professor's grin freezes. 

The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. &quot;You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. 

We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 -- You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. 

We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. 

Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.&quot; Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. 

&quot;Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?&quot; &quot;That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?&quot; 

&quot;So you say there is such a thing as darkness?&quot; 

&quot;Yes...&quot; 

&quot;You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. 

If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?&quot; 

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. &quot;Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?&quot; 

&quot;Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error....&quot; 

The professor goes toxic. &quot;Flawed...? How dare you...!&quot;&quot; 

&quot;Sir, may I explain what I mean?&quot; 

The class is all ears. 

&quot;Explain... oh, explain...&quot; The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue. 

&quot;You are working on the premise of duality,&quot; the Christian explains; &quot;that for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. 

Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. 

Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it.&quot; 

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. &quot;Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids you can buy, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?&quot; 

&quot;Of course there is, now look...&quot; 

&quot;Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?&quot; The Christian pauses. 

&quot;Isn't evil the absence of good?&quot; 

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. 

The Christian continues. &quot;If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing? 

The professor bridles. &quot;As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.&quot; 

&quot;I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,&quot; the Christian replies. &quot;Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you believethat we have evolved from a monkey?&quot; 

&quot;If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.&quot; 

&quot;Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?&quot; The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. 

&quot;Professor. All previous attempts to explain how the process works have failed. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?&quot; 

&quot;I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?&quot; the professor hisses. 

&quot;So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?&quot; 

&quot;I believe in what is - that's observable science!&quot; 

&quot;Ahh! SCIENCE!&quot; the student's face splits into a grin. &quot;Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. What you call &quot;science&quot; too is a premise which is flawed...&quot; 

&quot;SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?&quot; the professor splutters. The class is in uproar. 

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. &quot;To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?&quot; The professor wisely keeps silent. 

The Christian looks around the room.*Sir, the basic law of physics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet you in spite of that believe in &quot;spontaneous generation&quot; of the entire physical universe! Spontaneous generation of vermin was disproved centuries ago. 

Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! Sir, biogenesis is &quot;observable science&quot; as you say--life has only been observed to come from other life of like kind--and yet you apparently still believe that that is exactly what happened--in spite of science--that life somehow came from non-life. 

Young man, the professor began tersely, I believe that science will eventually.... 

&quot;That science will eventually prove that matter can be created, that life can come from non-life&quot; interrupted the young Christian? Sir, that's not science--that's Faith! What you believe is the exact opposite of &quot;observable science&quot;!Your faith is in what you are calling &quot;science&quot;, my faith is in God who created &quot;science&quot;. 

Make no mistake, Professor, we're both operating from faith.&quot; 

There follows a long pause as the Professor stares the young Christian down without a word. 

&quot;Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's mind?&quot; The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. &quot;Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's mind... felt the professor's mind, touched or smelled the professor's mind?&quot; 

No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. &quot;It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's mind whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol and science, I DECLARE that the professor has no mind.&quot; The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for, and begins filling out a drop slip.

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## cupotea (Apr 21, 2004)

[quote:04ecc73f53]So you think that God is the creator of evil?[/quote:04ecc73f53]

I did not say that, I only quoted scripture. For God to decree the fall does not make him the author of sin.


[quote:04ecc73f53]WCF 5.4 &quot;The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.&quot;[/quote:04ecc73f53]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Suzanne,

Thanks for the clearification. Sorry if I misread you. 

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 21, 2004)

Paul,
Sorry for the confusion. I concur w/ the WCF. My thing was the &quot;God is responsible for sin&quot; idea; That just makes my skin crawl.

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

I can see many talking past one another on these issues. Scott, I don't agree with Augustine's definition of evil (the one you purposed) as the mere absence of good. This definition at best is incomplete. Definitions of relative and abstract terms are better defined in terms of both positive and negative affirmations (i.e., what it is and what it is not). Therefore, biblically speaking, sin and evil are acts or thoughts of finite creatures doing something against or not doing something for the glory of God. This terse but sufficient definition will aid us folks in developing a sufficient theodicy.

Also, we as Reformed folks need to do a better job in defining our terms responsibility and author of sin and evil. For example, I have heard many times James White (I guy I love and respect) debate these issues with Arminians. The key terms "responsibility" and "author of sin" always comes up on both sides, but no one takes the time to define how they are using them. Consequently, the debate goes nowhere as both are talking past one another.

I have no problem in saying that God is the creator of sin and evil (Is. 45:7-by the way do a Hebrew search on the word translated evil and you will find it is at times translated in the context of sin) in the sense that He is the primary cause and mover (to borrow a term from Luther and others) of sin and evil. Now just because God created sin and evil, just because God wills, causes, and moves a creature to sin, does not mean He is the "author" of sin and evil. 

The word "author" is a very bad choice of words as it often carries a double meaning. For example the word author, for many, implies both creator and one who is responsible. However, when it gets down it what most people want and should avoid is the charge of God doing sin and evil. God is surely the creator of sin and evil and to deny this would be to affirm, albeit implicitly, Atheism or Deism. 

Therefore, the crux of the issue of God being the "author" of sin and evil is not whether God creates, decrees, and wills, sin and evil; or even moves creatures to sin and do evil, but rather does God sin and do evil. Obviously based on the Scriptures, God does not sin and do evil! So then how can we say God creates, wills, and decrees sin and evil; and even moves creatures to sin and evil, and yet not be accused of saying God does sin and evil? 

Answer: 1). God is not responsible for sin and evil. What I mean by responsible is accountable or answerable. As Scripture says God is not answerable (a lesson Job learned) to no being other than Himself. On the other hand, man is a creature, and ontologically speaking, he is responsible (answerable) to His Creator. And 2) God does all things for His glory including creating and willing sin and evil. How can one charge God with doing sin and evil if God is not responsible for sin and evil and (keeping in mind the definition of sin and evil provided above) God does all things for His glory? 

JWJ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

WCF 5.4 &quot;The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, [b:f93373ec89]as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.&quot;[/b:f93373ec89]


JWJ writes:
I can see many talking past one another on these issues. Scott, I don't agree with Augustine's definition of evil (the one you purposed) as the mere absence of good.

Scott says:
[color=Blue:f93373ec89]Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [/color:f93373ec89]

JWJ writes:
This definition at best is incomplete. Definitions of relative and abstract terms are better defined in terms of both positive and negative affirmations (i.e., what it is and what it is not). Therefore, biblically speaking, sin and evil are acts or thoughts of finite creatures doing something against or not doing something for the glory of God. This terse but sufficient definition will aid us folks in developing a sufficient theodicy. 

Also, we as Reformed folks need to do a better job in defining our terms responsibility and author of sin and evil. For example, I have heard many times James White (I guy I love and respect) debate these issues with Arminians. The key terms "responsibility" and "author of sin" always comes up on both sides, but no one takes the time to define how they are using them. Consequently, the debate goes nowhere as both are talking past one another. 

I have no problem in saying that God is the creator of sin and evil (Is. 45:7-by the way do a Hebrew search on the word translated evil and you will find it is at times translated in the context of sin) in the sense that He is the primary cause and mover (to borrow a term from Luther and others) of sin and evil. 

Scott says:
He may be primary &quot;cause and mover&quot;, but does that make Him the creator of evil? can anything good come from something bad (and vice versa),

Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


JWJ continues:
Now just because God created sin and evil, just because God wills, causes, and moves a creature to sin, does not mean He is the "author" of sin and evil. 

Scott inquires:
God creating something surely holds Him accountable to that which he created. &quot;Creating&quot; surely is the same as authoring. This is (in my opinion) double talk.


JWJ adds:
The word "author" is a very bad choice of words as it often carries a double meaning. For example the word author, for many, implies both creator and one who is responsible. However, when it gets down it what most people want and should avoid is the charge of God doing sin and evil. God is surely the creator of sin and evil and to deny this would be to affirm, albeit implicitly, Atheism or Deism. 

Scott:
Your opinion.

Therefore, the crux of the issue of God being the "author" of sin and evil is not whether God creates, decrees, and wills, sin and evil; or even moves creatures to sin and do evil, but rather does God sin and do evil. 

Scott says:
I disagree. God creates, all is Good. There is no darkness in Him. Evil has to be the absence of Good.

JWJ continues:
Obviously based on the Scriptures, God does not sin and do evil! So then how can we say God creates, wills, and decrees sin and evil; and even moves creatures to sin and evil, and yet not be accused of saying God does sin and evil? 

Answer: 1). God is not responsible for sin and evil. What I mean by responsible is accountable or answerable.

Scott:
This is akin to saying that God CAn do evil if he wills to do evil; He is God and He can do what He wants, after all He is God and God can do whatever He pleases. This is inconsistant.





[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

Scott,

It is quite obvious you did not read my post correctly. I suggest you read it again. You are mixing your defintions with mine. My whole point is that we should define our terms-- something you have not done in all points. 

JWJ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Jim,
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but I did read your posting. Does not the WCF clearly extrapolate my position?


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 22, 2004)

The WCF uses the word 'author' but it doesn't define it. Jim is saying define the words first then form the argument.

Sorry, I didn't mean to jump between you two, I just wanted to get my 100th post.  Love you both!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

okkeee dokeee..........


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

We know that God foreknows not by contingency, but that he foresees and purposes by his eternal will, how then can we not say everything, each and every act of man, is done with respect to the will of God?

I do believe that the fall of man was decreed by the secret counsel of God. If there had been no sin, there wouldn't have been a need for redemption. [i:67e19867d0]1 Peter 1:19 &quot;But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,&quot;[/i:67e19867d0] If the fall was decreed, then how was Adam not decreed to sin?

I'm trying to understand this. I may be confusing myself.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

jim,
It seems as if my best answer for the moment will be that historic orthodoxy has defined &quot;author&quot; as represented in the WCF.

~not running, just ducking!


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:4797aa48c6][i:4797aa48c6]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:4797aa48c6]
Jim,
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but I did read your posting. Does not the WCF clearly extrapolate my position? [/quote:4797aa48c6]

Scott,

Are you referring to &quot;as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."? If yes, I would say that your position is not against the WCF. However, there are times when we talk passed another due to key terms. 

My whole point is we should define our terms. The term "author" implies not creator (as I defined it i.e., wilier or causer-keep in mind many non reformed people equate God willing and ordaining with creating), but rather accountable and doing evil. This is the crux of the issue and the point the WCF framers wanted to address.

Now if you were using the term creator of evil to mean doer of evil then I would say no God is not and cannot be the creator of evil. However, again, this is not the crux and point. The issue is is God responsible and a doer of evil and sin. Now when one rightly defines the terms responsible and sin and evil they will see this charge is nonsense.

JWJ


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

I also wanted to add (if I already didn't) that the term &quot;author&quot; is understood by many non reformed folks to include willing, ordaining, and moving men, to sin and evil. Again this is why we need to define our terms.

JWJ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Not as painul as having a tooth pulled Jim........Sorry about the miscommunication.


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

Not as painful as Maxdetail getting in is 100th post before I. Oh well... at least I now have my 100th too 

JWJ


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 22, 2004)

&quot;If the fall was decreed, then how was Adam not decreed to sin? &quot;

(Wish I knew how to do those cool quote lines.)

Strictly speaking there is only one decree of God. All things, first means and secondary means were purposed, ordained, planned, predestined in eternity. God's decree is a singularity, we speak of decrees but that is only to accommodate our finite, systematic, logical thinking.

God is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, the ground source of being, the sovereign and ultimate cause of all things. He ordained, decreed, caused sin for good reasons. He appointed a good and godly end through secondary means.

God is the cause of sin and it was for good that he caused it.

Who is responsible is an whole other question. If we can agree that &quot;responsibility implies a superior authority who punishes or rewards&quot; (Clark) then God cannot be responsible and man must be responsible.

God is forever above the law and man forever below it.


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

Sorry, wrong thread. Post deleted by author.

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever]


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:8a91157161](Wish I knew how to do those cool quote lines.) [/quote:8a91157161]

Easy as pie, friend. Use tags. [ quote ] material you wish to quote [ / quote ] Remove the spaces in between the brackets and the word quote and voila! Quoted material!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:daf62c02e2][i:daf62c02e2]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:daf62c02e2]
&quot;If the fall was decreed, then how was Adam not decreed to sin? &quot;

(Wish I knew how to do those cool quote lines.)

Strictly speaking there is only one decree of God. All things, first means and secondary means were purposed, ordained, planned, predestined in eternity. God's decree is a singularity, we speak of decrees but that is only to accommodate our finite, systematic, logical thinking.

God is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, the ground source of being, the sovereign and ultimate cause of all things. He ordained, decreed, caused sin for good reasons. He appointed a good and godly end through secondary means.

God is the cause of sin and it was for good that he caused it.

Who is responsible is an whole other question. If we can agree that &quot;responsibility implies a superior authority who punishes or rewards&quot; (Clark) then God cannot be responsible and man must be responsible.

God is forever above the law and man forever below it. [/quote:daf62c02e2]

God is NOT above the Law. The law is an example of Gods character.

2Ti 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 
2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 
2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. 


[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 22, 2004)

My goodness Scott, you must be feeling a bit contrarian today.  Get outside and get some air. 

In the right context I agree with you're rebuttal but this argument is complicated enough without the context changing around it. The word 'law' means a lot of different things too. You just threw that word out and ran friend.

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by maxdetail]


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

Scott, my dear friend, I need to send you a good cigar so you can relax (I just smoked not too long ago a Don Lino--- yummy!). 

Anyhow, I hope you now see why I am often adamant to make people define their terms. As Maxdetail stated, in so many words, &quot;law&quot; is a &quot;slippery&quot; and relative word. Many of the Reformers (I can't quote them off hand but have these quotes available at my home office-- so let me know if you want me to provide them) would say that God is above His law. However, they are not saying that God sins or that God's law does not reflect His character. Again the word law as even the word &quot;reflect&quot; are relative terms and must be understood in context-- or in some cases clearly defined.

JWJ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Bob,
You're not the only loose cannon around here (Love you brother).
Unfortunately, certain things make me cringe. That is just one of them. besides, this is the theological forum, let us be as accurate as possible in what we say. I don't think that I threw the word out there and ran. Gods character and His decree's run hand in hand-no?





[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

By all means, I need to relax alot more; send many of those &quot;Don Lino's&quot;!!!!

Ok, I'll bite, how is God above His own laws?


[quote:4838f567d1][i:4838f567d1]Originally posted by JWJ[/i:4838f567d1]
Scott, my dear friend, I need to send you a good cigar so you can relax (I just smoked not too long ago a Don Lino--- yummy!). 

Anyhow, I hope you now see why I am often adamant to make people define their terms. As Maxdetail stated, in so many words, &quot;law&quot; is a &quot;slippery&quot; and relative word. Many of the Reformers (I can't quote them off hand but have these quotes available at my home office-- so let me know if you want me to provide them) would say that God is above His law. However, they are not saying that God sins or that God's law does not reflect His character. Again the word law as even the word &quot;reflect&quot; are relative terms and must be understood in context-- or in some cases clearly defined.

JWJ [/quote:4838f567d1]


----------



## Optimus (Apr 22, 2004)

hey guys

i just kind of skimmed through some posts but i think im with Scott on this one. Are you guys sayin that God is the author of sin? if not, then whats the debate about?


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 22, 2004)

I think part of the problem here is that the question is asked wrongly.
We are asking &quot;Did God decree Adam's sin?&quot; If that were the end result then that would seem terribly wrong and outside of God's character.

Eph 1:
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

The better question is &quot;Did God decree that the elect should be holy and blameless in his sight?&quot; We all agree on that one, yes, of course. None of us would have put together the plan to get there that God put together.

Adams sin was by necessity a means to our holy and blameless end. God ordained it and it is good.


----------



## panicbird (Apr 22, 2004)

I tend to side with Scott on this one, although I understand where the others are coming from. On the one hand, we all want to affirm that God is completely sovereign over all, meaning that unless He ordained it, it will not happen. In that sense, God ordained the fall. We can argue over whether to say He created sin or authored sin or whatever until the cows come home, though I think that has potential to devolve into a useless dispute about words. On the other hand, we do not want to be so careless as to insinuate that God did wrong in ordaining the fall. We should be careful with our words, so as to not to sin against God by impugning His holy character.

Lon


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

Guys,

For the 100th time, I am (as well as Maxdetail) not saying nor implying that God is the author of sin. Again, the issue is how one defines "author" "responsibility" and "sin and evil." Most Arminians and other non-reformed folks think (presume that if God wills, decrees, and even moves man to sin this means He is the "author" of sin and evil. Moreover, when us reformed folks rightly say that God wills, decrees, and moves man to sin they immediately say this implies that God is responsible for sin and evil. 

This is why we need to define our terms and not talk passed one another. Again, the crux of the issue is-- does God do sin and is God responsible for sin (this is what the framers of the WFC meant by "author"-though it would have been nice for them to spell it out). In the above threads I showed how a consistent and biblical definition of the terms show otherwise. Moreover, in the above threads I argued, implicitly, that we need to drop the term "author" or define what one means. It would be better to just say that God does not do sin and evil nor is He answerable to man on what He does.

JWJ

PS

Scott,

UL2 me your address and I will be glad to send you those yummy Don Lino's.


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

Jim,

You may want to throw in a brief definition for the &quot;sovereignty of God&quot; while you are at it. This seems to be a cause for much confusion.


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

CajunBibleBeliever,

Yes you are correct that sovereignty needs to be defined. In my experience in teaching and preaching on these subjects I have noticed many people have their own ideas of what sovereignty means. Consequently we often talk around and through another. By absolute sovereignty, I mean that God possesses supreme power and excellence to freely manifest His divine perfections on creation so to govern all things and events according to His good pleasure and will. 

The implications of God being absolutely sovereign is that He is the only autonomous Being who is free from external control, is the ultimate deterministic power and mover of all things, and thereby the ultimate cause of all things- whether speaking of good or evil in general or more specifically the will and choices of His creatures. 

JWJ


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

Scott,

What do you mean by law? Are you referring to commands or even to God's 10 Commands? What about the ceremonial elements? If for example, if you mean commands in general then you must see how God is not bound but rather, in a sense, above the command (law) to repent and believe the gospel. This law or command is not for God but rather for sinful man. Moreover, even if you are thinking of law as the 10 commands then you must admit that God is not bound to them in an absolute sense- but in a sense above the law. For example, how can God honor His mother or Father when He has none? How can God steal when all is His to take or give? 

I think Turretin does a good job on this issue (Volume One: Institutes, pp. 233-234) when he discusses whether the will of God is the primary rule of justice. He rightly says we must distinguish are terms and ideas. I thus refer you to him. However, allow me to leave you with a quote found on page 234: 

"God is not bound to the law which he imposes on man (viz. Formally, by taking the law as law), but he is not free and absolved from all the matter of the law, so that he can either command or himself do the opposite of it (for example, believe that he is not God and command others to believe so- which sounds horrible to pious ears." 

Thus God is above His law in the sense that God is not formally bound to his law when speaking of law as law. However, God is not above his law if by law one means the morality of His Character or justice.

JWJ


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 22, 2004)

Jim,
Agreed. Excellent definition by Turretin.


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:5743ccecb6][i:5743ccecb6]Originally posted by JWJ[/i:5743ccecb6]
CajunBibleBeliever,

Yes you are correct that sovereignty needs to be defined. In my experience in teaching and preaching on these subjects I have noticed many people have their own ideas of what sovereignty means. Consequently we often talk around and through another. By absolute sovereignty, I mean that God possesses supreme power and excellence to freely manifest His divine perfections on creation so to govern all things and events according to His good pleasure and will. 

The implications of God being absolutely sovereign is that He is the only autonomous Being who is free from external control, is the ultimate deterministic power and mover of all things, and thereby the ultimate cause of all things- whether speaking of good or evil in general or more specifically the will and choices of His creatures. 

JWJ [/quote:5743ccecb6]

OK Jim, with that premise that God is [b:5743ccecb6]&quot;the ultimate deterministic power and mover of all things, and thereby the ultimate cause of all things- whether speaking of good or evil in general or more specifically the will and choices of His creatures.&quot;[/b:5743ccecb6]

Are you saying that God can move the will of His creature to do evil? In other words, God can cause a man to sin, even for the glory of God.

With that, I submit:

(James 1:13-14) 
[13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: [14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

This verse contradicts that point of view, in that God cannot tempt any man to do evil.

Calvin writes:

&quot;It is abundantly evident that the external temptations, hitherto mentioned, are sent to us by God. In this way God tempted Abraham, and daily tempts us, that is, he tries us as to what are we by laying before us an occasion by which our hearts are made known. [b:5743ccecb6]But to draw out what is hid in our hearts is a far different thing from inwardly alluring our hearts by wicked lusts[/b:5743ccecb6].&quot;

&quot;But that God tempts no one, he proves by this, because he is not tempted with evils. For it is the devil who allures us to sin, and for this reason, because he wholly burns with the mad lust of sinning. But God does not desire what is evil: he is not, therefore, the author of doing evil in us.&quot;

John Gill writes:

&quot;...neither tempteth he any man; that is, to sin; he tempted Abraham, to try his faith, love, and obedience to him; he tempted the Israelites in the wilderness, to try them and humble them, and prove what was in their hearts; and he tempted Job, and tried his faith and patience; and so he tempts and tries all his righteous ones, by afflictions, more or less: [/b]but he never tempts or solicits them to sin; temptations to sin come from another quarter, as follows[/b].&quot;


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

CajunBibleBeliever,

Quote: &quot;Are you saying that God can move the will of His creature to do evil? In other words, God can cause a man to sin, even for the glory of God. &quot;

Yes. Yes this is what the bible says. 


Then you quote (James 1:13-14) [13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: [14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. And say "This verse contradicts that point of view, in that God cannot tempt any man to do evil." 

No it does not. The key is found in how this scripture uses the word tempt. I believe you are trying make more of this word than this verse allows. So how does the context of this verse define tempt? If it means that God cannot will sin or even cause a man to sin, then we have a contradiction in Scripture. However, let God be true, for it does not imply nor say this. Rather the word tempt means "drawn away by.. (sinful) lust...

Therefore as these verses say, God cannot be tempted with evil- i.e., God is not drawn away by sinful and evil lust because all that he does is for His glory- unlike man. Nor does God tempt any man. Again this verse does not say that God cannot will or cause man to sin. Rather the key is on how the word tempt is used and what it implies in this context.. Hence, sinful man can never say that God causes him to sin for the same sinful lustful purposes as man does (Gen. 50:20). Rather every man is tempted when he does things for his glory (drawn way by his own sinful lust).

JWJ


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:0b81962edd][i:0b81962edd]Originally posted by JWJ[/i:0b81962edd]

Rather the word tempt means "drawn away by.. (sinful) lust...

Nor does God tempt any man. Again this verse does not say that God cannot will or cause man to sin. Rather the key is on how the word tempt is used and what it implies in this context.. [b:0b81962edd] Hence, sinful man can never say that God causes him to sin for the same sinful lustful purposes as man does [/b:0b81962edd](Gen. 50:20). Rather every man is tempted when he does things for his glory (drawn way by his own sinful lust).

JWJ [/quote:0b81962edd]

Here is where I see the contradiction. You say that God can cause a man to sin, but at the same time you say that sinful man cannot say that God caused him to sin for man's sinful lust.

But it is OK for sinful man to say that God caused him to sin for God's glory.

Rather confusing here.

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever]


----------



## JWJ (Apr 22, 2004)

[/quote]

Here is where I see the contradiction. You say that God can cause a man to sin, but at the same time you say that sinful man cannot say that God caused him to sin for man's sinful lust.

But it is OK for sinful man to say that God caused him to sin for God's glory.

Rather confusing here.

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever] [/quote]

Confusing only if you fail to define your terms and speak of what sense you use your terms. 

JWJ


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

Jim,

I've seen different answers, but the bottom line is:

Basically, can God &quot;draw man away&quot; to commit an act of sin?

God tempts man in a sense of &quot;testing&quot; his faithfulness, but does He use His Sovereign power, which Calvinist claim is irresistible, &quot;to lure or entice&quot; men into sin?

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever]


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:36e8f60329][i:36e8f60329]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:36e8f60329]
Tom,
For lack of a better term, it seems as if my choosing to sin, in the light of Gods decree to complete the work that He has begun in me until the day of Christ Jesus, that is to -sanctify- his people, does not contradict His omnipotence or Lordship in the least when I rebel to sin against Him, hence it is a response by me in the divided sense. The compound sense is that God is omnipotent and man is not. The compound says that Gods will cannot be thwarted. The compound sense is that the work that God began will be completed. The divided sense is that while I am yet a child of God, and have a new heart and the Holy Spirit in me, I may at times still rebel and choose to sin instead of following Gods presence and commands.
We are not puppets..........

[Edited on 4-21-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:36e8f60329]

I think I get it. Could you please unpack this for me so I could understand??


----------



## Radar (Apr 22, 2004)

*How about this line of reasoning?*

First, God created Adam and Eve innocent (meaning free from sin but capable of it), but not perfect (meaning incapable of sin, like saints in heaven). That was His sovereign decision. Thus by making the [i:6150bf474f]potentiality[/i:6150bf474f] for evil, He made the [i:6150bf474f]inevitability[/i:6150bf474f] of evil (finite creatures with the capability to sin will ultimately sin at some point in time). Adam and Eve could have eaten of any tree, including the tree of life, but if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. I have no reason to believe that if they ate off of the tree of life first, and even regularly, that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would vanish or be banished or whatever. It seems it would still be there, capable of bringing death if eaten of. 

Thus, after choosing to make man with the potentiality of evil, and making no promise to rid them of that potentiality, God sovereignly chose that the very first couple would realize that potentiality and fall, all for His glory. How? I imagine the alternative this way: suppose Adam and Eve resisted the serpent. And imagine their children did too. And their grandchildren...on and on for generations. Until one fateful day, Adam's great-great-great grandson Billy Bob and his wife succombed and ate. Now what? We have a race of thousands or even millions of innocent people under the federal headship of Adam, and a new race under the fallen federal head of Billy Bob. Christ comes to redeem members of the fallen race under a third federal head of Himself. That diminishes Christ's glory because instead of Christ being the federal head of the righteous, he shares that honor with obedient Adam. What a mess. Later on, if Adam and Eve were to fall too, and still have more children, Adam himself could be the father of both the innocent race of those born before he fell, and the father of a fallen race born to him after he fell. What a bigger mess.

Lo, it was God's good pleasure that the potentiality for evil be realized and take man down from the very beginning, so that Christ would be exalted as the head of all the righteous who enter heaven, with a righteousness not of themselves but of Christ.

Thus, He decreed the fall. By His will He created man capable of falling, and He set the timing of that fall for Christ's greater glory. 

Or do I need more sleep?

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by Radar]


----------



## cupotea (Apr 22, 2004)

[quote:97b7e121d7][i:97b7e121d7]Originally posted by Radar[/i:97b7e121d7]
First, God created Adam and Eve innocent (meaning free from sin but capable of it), but not perfect (meaning incapable of sin, like saints in heaven). That was His sovereign decision. Thus by making the [i:97b7e121d7]potentiality[/i:97b7e121d7] for evil, He made the [i:97b7e121d7]inevitability[/i:97b7e121d7] of evil (finite creatures with the capability to sin will ultimately sin at some point in time). Adam and Eve could have eaten of any tree, including the tree of life, but if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. I have no reason to believe that if they ate off of the tree of life first, and even regularly, that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would vanish or be banished or whatever. It seems it would still be there, capable of bringing death if eaten of. 

Thus, after choosing to make man with the potentiality of evil, and making no promise to rid them of that potentiality, God sovereignly chose that the very first couple would realize that potentiality and fall, all for His glory. How? I imagine the alternative this way: suppose Adam and Eve resisted the serpent. And imagine their children did too. And their grandchildren...on and on for generations. Until one fateful day, Adam's great-great-great grandson Billy Bob and his wife succombed and ate. Now what? We have a race of thousands or even millions of innocent people under the federal headship of Adam, and a new race under the fallen federal head of Billy Bob. Christ comes to redeem members of the fallen race under a third federal head of Himself. That diminishes Christ's glory because instead of Christ being the federal head of the righteous, he shares that honor with obedient Adam. What a mess. Later on, if Adam and Eve were to fall too, and still have more children, Adam himself could be the father of both the innocent race of those born before he fell, and the father of a fallen race born to him after he fell. What a bigger mess.

Lo, it was God's good pleasure that the potentiality for evil be realized and take man down from the very beginning, so that Christ would be exalted as the head of all the righteous who enter heaven, with a righteousness not of themselves but of Christ.

Thus, He decreed the fall. By His will He created man capable of falling, and He set the timing of that fall for Christ's greater glory. 

Or do I need more sleep? [/quote:97b7e121d7]

I'll buy that! And that is supported by the LBCF and WCF.

[b:97b7e121d7]LBCF IX: Of Free Will[/b:97b7e121d7]

1 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. (Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19)

2 Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it. (Eccles. 7:29; Gen. 3:6)

[b:97b7e121d7]WCF IX: Of Free Will[/b:97b7e121d7]

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.


----------



## JWJ (Apr 23, 2004)

[quote:010ed37e44][i:010ed37e44]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:010ed37e44]
Jim,

I've seen different answers, but the bottom line is:

Basically, can God &quot;draw man away&quot; to commit an act of sin?

God tempts man in a sense of &quot;testing&quot; his faithfulness, but does He use His Sovereign power, which Calvinist claim is irresistible, &quot;to lure or entice&quot; men into sin?

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever] [/quote:010ed37e44]

You are mixing the compound sense with the divided sense. To borrow Matthew's illustration, you are trying to cram all your theological pieces on one chess board (sorry Matthew, I could not resist). The point being is that you must keep this text within its context and not try to use it in other areas of doctrine. Allow me to explain.

In my previous post, I should have made more plain (yes I am often guilty of not defining and clarifying terms / thoughts) that James is not speaking of ultimate or first causation but rather proximate or "immediate" causation. For example, when I said "If it means that God cannot will sin or even cause a man to sin, then we have a contradiction in Scripture." I was speaking of God being the ultimate or first cause of sinning. Hence, James is not saying that God is not the ultimate cause of sin and evil. James is not speaking from the point of view of God's absolute sovereignty. Rather he is speaking from the point of view of man and the "immediate" cause of man sinning. The point is that man can only blame his own sinful lust for his sin. The "immediate" cause of man's sin is not God but rather our own sinful and evil heart. From this perspective, God does not draw us away, but we are drawn away by our own sinful and evil lust.

Now to your first question "can God &quot;draw man away&quot; to commit an act of sin?" The answer depends what you mean by "draw away". If what you mean by "draw away" is in the context of James (i.e., immediate causation by our own sinful lust) then the answer is NO. However, if by "draw away" you mean God as the ultimate cause or even God working through His providence (i.e., through various other secondary causes / circumstances he puts in our path) I would say YES.

Now to your second question-"God tempts man in a sense of &quot;testing&quot; his faithfulness, but does He use His Sovereign power, which Calvinist claim is irresistible, &quot;to lure or entice&quot; men into sin?"

First of all you must not equate the word tempt in James with testing. This is not how James uses the word. Again, for James tempt means "man being drawn away by his own sinful and evil lust. The answer is the same as above. It all depends what you mean by "to lure or entice." If you are using these words in the context of James, NO God does not use His Sovereign irresistible power to lure or entice men to sin. However, if by lure or entice you mean God being the ultimate mover or irresistible power, then YES.

JWJ


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 23, 2004)

Radar, the only problem I see with your post is that there would be no need for another federal head from the race of men. Mankind would have been sealed in righteousness just as they were, instead, sealed in sin until the 2nd Adam.

The angels were tested on an individual basis and by nature we wish we were too.

Another interesting thought though and you began to hit on it is this:
If Adam didn't sin then HE would be our Messiah and we would worship him and that would be idolatry. 

Again, God ordained man to sin for good and God glorying reasons.


----------

