Decreeing Adam to sin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim,
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but I did read your posting. Does not the WCF clearly extrapolate my position?
 
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. :banana: Love you both!
 
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 "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,"[/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.
 
jim,
It seems as if my best answer for the moment will be that historic orthodoxy has defined "author" as represented in the WCF.

~not running, just ducking!:chained:
 
[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 "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
 
I also wanted to add (if I already didn't) that the term "author" 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
 
Not as painful as Maxdetail getting in is 100th post before I. Oh well... at least I now have my 100th too :banana:

JWJ
 
"If the fall was decreed, then how was Adam not decreed to sin? "

(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 "responsibility implies a superior authority who punishes or rewards" (Clark) then God cannot be responsible and man must be responsible.

God is forever above the law and man forever below it.
 
[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!
 
[quote:daf62c02e2][i:daf62c02e2]Originally posted by maxdetail[/i:daf62c02e2]
"If the fall was decreed, then how was Adam not decreed to sin? "

(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 "responsibility implies a superior authority who punishes or rewards" (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]
 
My goodness Scott, you must be feeling a bit contrarian today. :banghead: 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]
 
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, "law" is a "slippery" 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 "reflect" are relative terms and must be understood in context-- or in some cases clearly defined.

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

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, "law" is a "slippery" 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 "reflect" are relative terms and must be understood in context-- or in some cases clearly defined.

JWJ [/quote:4838f567d1]
 
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?
 
I think part of the problem here is that the question is asked wrongly.
We are asking "Did God decree Adam's sin?" 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 "Did God decree that the elect should be holy and blameless in his sight?" 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Jim,

You may want to throw in a brief definition for the "sovereignty of God" while you are at it. This seems to be a cause for much confusion.
 
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
 
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
 
[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]"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."[/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:

"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]."

"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."

John Gill writes:

"...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]."
 
CajunBibleBeliever,

Quote: "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. "

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
 
[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]
 
[/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
 
Jim,

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

Basically, can God "draw man away" to commit an act of sin?

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

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Adam & Sin
Replies
6
Views
2K
Greg
Greg
Davidius
  • Locked
HOW Did Adam Sin?
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
MW
M
M
  • Locked
How did Adam sin?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Mean Old Man
M
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
John Owen: Adam was created without an inclination to sin
Replies
0
Views
523
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
chuckd
  • Locked
Why is Adam tied to original sin and not Eve?
Replies
3
Views
2K
chuckd
chuckd
Back
Top