praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Your position makes Him responsible. You have clearly stated that God predestined all things. That statement makes God culpable in the results. God hasn't predestined secondary cause.
The connection between Gnosticism and the Reformers
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Your position makes Him responsible. You have clearly stated that God predestined all things. That statement makes God culpable in the results. God hasn't predestined secondary cause.
civic
Well-known member
The whole primary and secondary cause and the active and passive will are strawman arguments attempting to get God off the hook for sin and evil and being the responsible party. Compatibilism does the same thing its what I call the inconsistent calvinist. The hyper calvinist is consistent with his doctrines and faces the music about them and defends them taking full responsibility for his beliefs without trying to get God off the hook. That person knows his beliefs lead to God as the responsible party and the author of evil.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The fact God takes action in secondary cause proves that God's intent in primary cause is not complete. The idea God predestined all things is utterly preposterous. God works to overcome the secondary cause of men. His "angels" minister to His purpose.
If what you say is true, then the logical conclusion is that God is too weak to get it right the first time. When you exclude the freedom imparted man to be direct cause in an outcome you cast "evil" upon the Good Character of God.
Not entirely. As God has designed this life, there are circumstances that overwhelm even the faithful. Which is why we pray. Which is why we must seek God to avoid the hazards found in this life.
You only claim that for yourself and the few you believe God predetermined. There is no need to appeal to the love, wisdom and forbearance of God when you only have such things in view for yourself. I give you a suggestion. It would help you if you would have more Apologetic discussions with the faithless. Calvinists are so ill prepared for such challenges.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I agree. Hyper Calvinism is the logical result of such positions. Some are just too reluctant to see what they believe for what it is.
civic
Well-known member
ditto
atpollard
Well-known member
Thank you for FINALLY admitting that Post #23 was incorrect (because it was incomplete).
Not MINE ... I am "Christus Victor" and not "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" (I take exception to the Father pouring WRATH on the Son as not biblically supported).
civic
Well-known member
good to know about your beliefs with PSA. you are the exception to the rule with calvinists.
atpollard
Well-known member
Definitely in the minority.
To be fair:
- There was a penalty (penal)
- There was a substitution ("He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.")
- There was an atonement ("so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.")
WRATH ... is where I see issues between the explanation of men and the words of scripture.
The FATHER loves the SON ... always and forever. Even our sin cannot change that. Wrath is stored up "for the day of wrath" (not poured out on the innocent).
civic
Well-known member
Amen.
makesends
Well-known member
civic said:
Gods foreknowledge does not make Him responsible. God predestining the crucifixion does not make Him responsible.
makesends said:
Then how does God's foreknowledge and predestining of all things make him responsible?
Gods foreknowledge does not make Him responsible. God predestining the crucifixion does not make Him responsible.
makesends said:
Then how does God's foreknowledge and predestining of all things make him responsible?
@civic said that God's foreknowledge does not make Him responsible and that God predestining the crucifixion does not make Him responsible. If that is true, then how would God's foreknowledge and predestining of anything (or everything) else make him responsible?
makesends
Well-known member
If that is true, (that predestining or predetermining an event like the crucifixion does not make God the responsible one for the evil act) then how does his predestining or predetermining of any event make him responsible for the evil?
Hosanna
Well-known member
I'm pointing out the spin Calvinism puts on it.
civic
Well-known member
Calvinist theologians including Calvin teach God is responsible for those evil and sinful acts
Rockson
Well-known member
Why should God predestinating Jesus to go to the cross make him responsible for the evil act? The participants all still acted by their free will. He didn't make them do it. They did it for their own selfish reasons.
BUT predeterminism is taught:
Acts 4:28 They carried out what Your hand and will had decided beforehand would happen.
Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of Hosts has sworn: "Surely, as I have planned, so will it be; as I have purposed, so will it stand.
Isaiah 37:26 Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it; in days of old I planned it. Now I have brought it to pass...
Acts 2:23 He was delivered up by God's set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.
So, if ANY of the sins men do is determined by GOD it behooves us to understand how that can be when GOD cannot do or create evil. For me, just saying all sin comes from man doesn't tell me what is happening in these verses.
But when I consider that a predetermined life must be a life most effective in our redemption, repentance and sanctification to speed up the end of the postponement of the judgement day, 2 Peter 3:11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness 12 as you anticipate and hasten, (speed up) the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be destroyed by fire and the elements will melt in the heat.
and I consider that the sins we do come from our own heart, James 1:13, it seems like the desire to sin is in us due to our enslavement to sin but that desire works out into actual sinful action by the will of GOD as a perfect expression of our sinfulness which will best open our eyes to our need for repentance.
We choose to sin; HE manages how we actually bring forth our sin into action to best fulfill HIS purpose on earth. The sins HE has us to do are merely the perfect reflection of the sins we want to do but geared to HIS purpose to shorten postponement of the judgement day.
Iow, our sinful acts are HIS message: "See this is what being a sinner is about, this is the reality of sin and the suffering you cause by a lack of holiness!"
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Your reasoning is at fault here. You are vainly trying to defend God's virtue by placing responsibility for sinful acts on some other cause as if God is not sovereign over all things. But God is God, and God does all things as he pleases and for His own glory. It pleased God for Joseph's brothers to send Joseph into slavery because God MEANT to use it for good. Could God have prevented the brothers' action? Of course He could. Not even Satan can do anything without God's permission. Did God force his brothers to do it? No, the brothers did it of their own fallen will. But God made sure that it would happen because it was part of His plan.
It does not follow (non-sequitur) that if God makes sure that sin happens that God is evil and controlling the sinners like robots. But nothing occurs apart from God's will. Nothing.
We know God does all things according to His good pleasure whether or not we happen to like the actions. This is the heart of FAITH. When we see atrocities occur, it is FAITH that sustains us because His purposes in ordaining these things to occur are unsearchable by we mere men. Have FAITH in God and stop trying defend God as if he needs such defense.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
A.W. Pink made my point better than I can.
"But let it be said very emphatically that the heart can only rest upon and enjoy the blessed truth of the absolute Sovereignty of God as faith is in exercise. Faith is ever occupied with God. That is the character of it; that is what differentiates it from intellectual theology. Faith endures "as seeing Him who is invisible" (Heb. 11:27): endures the disappointments, the hardships, and the heartaches of life by recognizing that all comes from the hand of Him who is too wise to err and too loving to be unkind. But so long as we are occupied with any other object than God Himself there will be neither rest for the heart nor peace for the mind. But when we receive all that enters our lives as from His hand, then, no matter what may be our circumstances or surroundings-whether in a hovel, a prison-dungeon, or a martyr's stake-we shall be enabled to say, "The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places" (Psa. 16:6). But that is the language of faith, not of sight or of sense.
But if instead of bowing to the testimony of Holy Writ, if instead of walking by faith, we follow the evidence of our eyes, and reason therefrom, we shall fall into a quagmire of virtual atheism. Or, if we are regulated by the opinions and views of others, peace will be at an end. Granted that there is much in this world of sin and suffering which appalls and saddens us; granted that there is much in the providential dealings of God which startle and stagger us; that is no reason why we should unite with the unbelieving worldling who says, "If I were God, I would not allow this or tolerate that," etc. Better far, in the presence of bewildering mystery, to say with one of old, "I was dumb, I opened not my mouth: because Thou didst it" (Psa. 39:9). Scripture tells us that God's judgments are "unsearchable," and His ways "past finding out" (Rom. 11:33). It must be so if faith is to be tested, confidence in His wisdom and righteousness strengthened, and submission to His holy will fostered."
"But let it be said very emphatically that the heart can only rest upon and enjoy the blessed truth of the absolute Sovereignty of God as faith is in exercise. Faith is ever occupied with God. That is the character of it; that is what differentiates it from intellectual theology. Faith endures "as seeing Him who is invisible" (Heb. 11:27): endures the disappointments, the hardships, and the heartaches of life by recognizing that all comes from the hand of Him who is too wise to err and too loving to be unkind. But so long as we are occupied with any other object than God Himself there will be neither rest for the heart nor peace for the mind. But when we receive all that enters our lives as from His hand, then, no matter what may be our circumstances or surroundings-whether in a hovel, a prison-dungeon, or a martyr's stake-we shall be enabled to say, "The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places" (Psa. 16:6). But that is the language of faith, not of sight or of sense.
But if instead of bowing to the testimony of Holy Writ, if instead of walking by faith, we follow the evidence of our eyes, and reason therefrom, we shall fall into a quagmire of virtual atheism. Or, if we are regulated by the opinions and views of others, peace will be at an end. Granted that there is much in this world of sin and suffering which appalls and saddens us; granted that there is much in the providential dealings of God which startle and stagger us; that is no reason why we should unite with the unbelieving worldling who says, "If I were God, I would not allow this or tolerate that," etc. Better far, in the presence of bewildering mystery, to say with one of old, "I was dumb, I opened not my mouth: because Thou didst it" (Psa. 39:9). Scripture tells us that God's judgments are "unsearchable," and His ways "past finding out" (Rom. 11:33). It must be so if faith is to be tested, confidence in His wisdom and righteousness strengthened, and submission to His holy will fostered."
Rockson
Well-known member
Perhaps it all depends on how one is reading the verse? What exactly did God decide beforehand would happen? That Jesus would die as a sacrifice for sin. Did it actually have to be from the end result of their selfishness and sin? Wasn't he always seeking to show them that he indeed wanted to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks?
Yes he did and that reflected the feeling of the Father as well for Jesus said when you've seen me you've seen the Father. God the Father wanted them to accept the Christ. His heart was broken when they didn't. Remember when you see Jesus weeping over Jerusalem you must understand that's reflects exactly the Father's feeling as well. A sadness and grief.
So....what would have happened if they would have accepted him as the Messiah? Jesus would STILL have to go to the cross and to die as the lamb of God. It therefore would have been done with a mutual understanding this would need to occur. In other words they would have sacrificed Jesus. So God always wanted the High Priest to carry out the sacrifice of himself.
If they accepted him it would still have to occur but this was the thing he decided beforehand would happen.....that it would. Or to say it another way God was committed that the High Priest would sacrifice the lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world.
And that fits with what I've said above as well. His actual plan would be done. Could there be different ways in which exactly it could be carried out. I don't see why there couldn't.
Well perhaps I just explained it above?
Rockson
Well-known member
Problem is when the gentleman above starts talking about resting in his understanding of the absolute Sovereignty of God I get nervous and would tell others, no don't do that.....not in the way he particularly thinks about Sovereignty.
makesends
Well-known member
If they use the words, "responsible", what do they mean by it?
