Yes, Calvinists—free will IS in the Bible.

[makesends]

God never uses sin to accomplish anything. There is no meaningful difference between saying God created sin and saying that God caused sin. The primary cause of sin was disobedience. Your sense Of casualty is ridiculous. God is NOT the author/creator/cause of sin. Your "spin" of the subject is nonsense.

You said, "God never uses sin to accomplish anything." I expect to hear from you soon, your use of Genesis 50:20, that says, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

 

[makesends]

You are full of double talk. You say God is the author of sin because of the primary cause of God creating the Universe. Which is ridiculous.

God created dirt. Man fabricated dirt into a weapon. Men used that dirt to commit sin. God is not the primary cause of the evil caused by men from their primary cause in fabricating a weapon.

You are endlessly misrepresenting God. Congratulations. God must really love your characterization tht He is incapable of accomplishing His desire without the cause of evil. You should be so proud of yourself. Do you think God will praise your sinfulness for His Glory?

Show me, please, where I say that God is the author of sin. I do not.

Men used that dirt to commit sin. I say, 'first cause'; I don't say, 'primary cause', as that is taken by some to imply that it is mostly God and a little bit man. Man's sin is by man's doing. If God made the dirt, and man used it for sin, then that sin is still a result of God making that dirt.

I don't say that God is incapable of anything. But can you please drop the sarcasm and antagonism? Bad enough that you continue the misrepresentation of me.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I say that God caused that there be sin.

That's an assertion that implies intent.

Yes, indeed so! Perhaps you have a way to explain how omniscient God did not know what would happen when "all things were made by him". If he knew, but created anyway, he intended for it to happen.

makesends said:
I don't say that God created sin.

I get what you're saying but it still doesn't work. It's like you're saying God left two open paint cans....one with yellow....another with blue. And you're saying MAN came along and he mixed them NOT God but MAN....to make GREEN. God didn't create GREEN or sin you say MAN did. You forget one thing however. Your doctrine has it MAN ordained sin to occur....ORDAINED IT. That would mean no other choice could be made once he ordained it. Now let's go to your next point.

This point is faulty. But I have to assume you meant to say, GOD ordained sin to occur, implying "no other choice could be made once he ordained it." You are right: No other choice could be made once God ordained that that particular choice would occur. Yet, man did choose from the options available to his 'sight'. The fact that only what God ordains ever happens is irrelevant to the fact that man chose what he chose. Man chooses according to his preferences and inclinations, even if only for that moment. If his preference is only ever at enmity with God, then he chooses at enmity with God. It is his nature to do so.

makesends said:
Sin is a result of each person's uncontrolled lusts,

Your doctrine would therefore have to mean that if what God ordained must take place without fail that would therefore make God responsible for creating what you call above each person's uncontrolled lust. By your own words that's the way it happened. If that's therefore the way you say it happened, or that's the guarantee factor of God's ordaining.....well there you go. You're really believing God created sin. I trust and hope you can see that.

Your word, "responsible", is what —accusation? or crediting? John 1 says, "All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made." So, yes, in one sense, God is responsible for all things that come to pass. But it is to his credit and his glory. When one sins, it is because he sinned, and that too, is to God's credit and glory. He does not stand in judgement of any human court. It is to God's glory and credit because God uses man's sin for good. Take it or leave it —it is plainly there in scripture and logic.

 

[TomL]

I did not say he is not a cause of it. I said he is not THE cause of it. I don't even say he causes it, but that he causes that there be sin. I am particular about that simply because I want it understood that sin comes from within the sinner; but all things descend logically from God's having created. It's really not complicated, until someone wants to look at it through the lens of self-determinism.

But if that's too much parsing for you, then go ahead and condemn those who do say that God created sin. The question is not, I hope, whether God knew that there would be sin when he created, but went ahead and created anyway, for his own purposes.

If you are going to hold God meticulously determines all things, you cannot logically hold to a position where he is not the cause of all of man's sin

If you are not going to hold God determines all things, there is no need to hold he determines man's sin

 

[praise_yeshua]

You said, "God never uses sin to accomplish anything." I expect to hear from you soon, your use of Genesis 50:20, that says, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

You know how many times I've heard this malarky in my life? From many many men like yourself.

There is nothing in that verse that indicates that God uses sin to accomplish His will. God can do anything. He doesn't NEED sin. You're require God to NEED SIN....

Why would you ever disparage the lovely nature of God with needing sin........???????

God overcame the sin of Joseph's brothers. You have a problem relative to English.

God rescued Joseph. That is WHO God is. God didn't the evil of the brothers to accomplish His purpose.

Gen 50:20 You planned concerning me for evil, but God planned concerning me for good,

Even we are evil, God is always GOOD.... You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Show me, please, where I say that God is the author of sin. I do not.

You absolute do. Everyone but just a few people that support your view can see the same thing. These are "weasel words". You present a scenario wherein God is creates/primary cause/is the author of sin and then insist you didn't claim such. Weasel words.

Men used that dirt to commit sin. I say, 'first cause'; I don't say, 'primary cause',

Just because you're living in a false reality in your mind that separates first and primary cause relative to man fabricating a weapon that kills doesn't make it REAL.....

as that is taken by some to imply that it is mostly God and a little bit man. Man's sin is by man's doing. If God made the dirt, and man used it for sin, then that sin is still a result of God making that dirt.

Nonsense. The weapon wouldn't exist at all if man didn't make it.

I don't say that God is incapable of anything. But can you please drop the sarcasm and antagonism? Bad enough that you continue the misrepresentation of me.

It is not an misrepresentation. It is an accurate assessment. You don't OWN reality. It doesn't what words you "parse". It matters how reality applies your claims.

 

[civic]

You absolute do. Everyone but just a few people that support your view can see the same thing. These are "weasel words". You present a scenario wherein God is creates/primary cause/is the author of sin and then insist you didn't claim such. Weasel words.


Men used that dirt to commit sin. I say, 'first cause'; I don't say, 'primary cause',

Just because you're living in a false reality in your mind that separates first and primary cause relative to man fabricating a weapon that kills doesn't make it REAL.....



Nonsense. The weapon wouldn't exist at all if man didn't make it.



It is not an misrepresentation. It is an accurate assessment. You don't OWN reality. It doesn't what words you "parse". It matters how reality applies your claims.

The first cause argument comes from greek philosophy and was married with christianity. It also makes the one who is the cause the guilty party. They would fail miserably in a court of law with that argument trying to say the one who caused the action was not culpable for what took place.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The first cause argument comes from greek philosophy and was married with christianity. It also makes the one who is the cause the guilty party. They would fail miserably in a court of law with that argument trying to say the one who caused the action was not culpable for what took place.

Yep. Lawyers tend to promote themselves. It ultimately only matters what the Judge says.

 

[makesends]

If you are going to hold God meticulously determines all things, you cannot logically hold to a position where he is not the cause of all of man's sin

If you are not going to hold God determines all things, there is no need to hold he determines man's sin

I parse my words the way I do because people like you so often assume that human language is capable of assessing all truth. That would be a mistake to assume.

From my POV, you have stated something logically false with your first sentence there: "If you are going to hold God meticulously determines all things, you cannot logically hold to a position where he is not the cause of all of man's sin". You will notice that in the post you answer, I carefully emphasized the word, "THE", in saying that I don't claim God is THE cause, as though no other thing also caused, each man's sin. It's really pretty simple —God began the chains of causation; other things, effects all, are also causes within the chains of causation.

To you, I suppose, that implies something Deistic, that God only began all things, but Deism, too, is illogical: One science writer observed, rather poetically, something like, "The seeds of all that exists today, were sown in the Big Bang." My point is not to defend that writer nor his notions, but to point at his use of the notion of 'causation'. In that, he was exactly right. Within time, whatever happens is a result of what came before it.

God created. And he did so with intention, and there have been no mistakes, and no "if's", on his part. His creation does not determine his decree. But his creation does exactly as he decreed. If God is omniscient, and omnipotent, he intended EVERY DETAIL of what resulted from his creating.

I do hold that God determines all things, to include man's sin.

There is no such thing as absolute spontaneity of any creature. That is simply illogical.

 

[makesends]

The first cause argument comes from greek philosophy and was married with christianity. It also makes the one who is the cause the guilty party. They would fail miserably in a court of law with that argument trying to say the one who caused the action was not culpable for what took place.

If the trauma of your upbringing perverted your sense of propriety, to where you did all sorts of crimes with no compunctions but to avoid getting caught, does that release you of responsibility for your crimes? Of course not. So if the fact that you exist, by God's decision to cause you to exist, and to cause all other fact to exist, means that you do as you do, does that then imply that those involved in your upbringing have released you from your responsibility?

 

[makesends]

You absolute do. Everyone but just a few people that support your view can see the same thing. These are "weasel words". You present a scenario wherein God is creates/primary cause/is the author of sin and then insist you didn't claim such. Weasel words.



Just because you're living in a false reality in your mind that separates first and primary cause relative to man fabricating a weapon that kills doesn't make it REAL.....



Nonsense. The weapon wouldn't exist at all if man didn't make it.



It is not an misrepresentation. It is an accurate assessment. You don't OWN reality. It doesn't what words you "parse". It matters how reality applies your claims.

You know how many times I've heard this malarky in my life? From many many men like yourself.

There is nothing in that verse that indicates that God uses sin to accomplish His will. God can do anything. He doesn't NEED sin. You're require God to NEED SIN....

Why would you ever disparage the lovely nature of God with needing sin........???????

God overcame the sin of Joseph's brothers. You have a problem relative to English.

God rescued Joseph. That is WHO God is. God didn't the evil of the brothers to accomplish His purpose.

Gen 50:20 You planned concerning me for evil, but God planned concerning me for good,

Even we are evil, God is always GOOD.... You should be ashamed of yourself.

Well, sir. You have accomplished what you set out to do. You have convinced me that it is not the Calvinists after all, that are the contentious and antagonistic ones. Have a good day.

@civic , thanks for the invite. It has been fun. But I've had enough.

 

[Rockson]

If you are going to hold God meticulously determines all things, you cannot logically hold to a position where he is not the cause of all of man's sin

It's stunning how anyone can embrace such a irrational nonsensical way of thinking about God. As you say you can't have God determining everything and not have that include being him being the cause of sin.

 

[TomL]

It's stunning how anyone can embrace such a irrational nonsensical way of thinking about God. As you say you can't have God determining everything and not have that include being him being the cause of sin.

It destroys the love and holiness of God and is a terrible besmirching of his character

 

[TomL]

I parse my words the way I do because people like you so often assume that human language is capable of assessing all truth. That would be a mistake to assume.

From my POV, you have stated something logically false with your first sentence there: "If you are going to hold God meticulously determines all things, you cannot logically hold to a position where he is not the cause of all of man's sin". You will notice that in the post you answer, I carefully emphasized the word, "THE", in saying that I don't claim God is THE cause, as though no other thing also caused, each man's sin. It's really pretty simple —God began the chains of causation; other things, effects all, are also causes within the chains of causation.

To you, I suppose, that implies something Deistic, that God only began all things, but Deism, too, is illogical: One science writer observed, rather poetically, something like, "The seeds of all that exists today, were sown in the Big Bang." My point is not to defend that writer nor his notions, but to point at his use of the notion of 'causation'. In that, he was exactly right. Within time, whatever happens is a result of what came before it.

God created. And he did so with intention, and there have been no mistakes, and no "if's", on his part. His creation does not determine his decree. But his creation does exactly as he decreed. If God is omniscient, and omnipotent, he intended EVERY DETAIL of what resulted from his creating.

I do hold that God determines all things, to include man's sin.

There is no such thing as absolute spontaneity of any creature. That is simply illogical.

Parse your words all you like. But you have placed God in a causal chain at the very beginning of it.

Further you have God determining all of man's sin. How you can have God determining man';s sin and not have him as the ultimate

cause of man's sin would be a great mystery

 

[civic]

Well, sir. You have accomplished what you set out to do. You have convinced me that it is not the Calvinists after all, that are the contentious and antagonistic ones. Have a good day.

@civic , thanks for the invite. It has been fun. But I've had enough.

I'm sorry to hear that brother. I'll see if I can get a few to back off with their assumptions /attacks.

Personally I think the word " Calvinist " is always perceived as what Calvin taught but there are many within that group that differ from what he taught, so we cannot lump everyone together and throw the baby out with the bath water. I read yesterday an article where many who are 3 or 4 point among many other differences from the calvinist of the 16th century consider themselves to be calvinists.

Flowers talks about some of that here

https://soteriology101.com/2017/05/20/you-dont-understand-calvinism/

There are moderate Calvinists, high Calvinists, ultra Calvinists and hyper Calvinists (the last of which most Calvinists would disavow completely). There are some who affirm God’s provisional atonement for all people and God’s sincere desire for every individual to repent and believe; but others who do not. There are some who affirm God’s genuine love for every individual, while others only describe his feelings toward the non-elect as wrath-filled hatred.

Those familiar with the lapsarian controversy, which has to do with the logical order of God’s eternal decrees of salvation, realize the complexities of rightly defining the various perspectives of Calvinism. This disagreement is ultimately centered around the “achilles heel” of the Calvinistic worldview: DIVINE CULPABILITY. How does God escape being held responsible for the origin and ultimate cause of all moral evil? Some Calvinists attempt to explain the logical order of the divine decree in such a way as to minimize His guilt for the fall and the origin of evil, while “higher” forms of Calvinism (typically called “Supralapsarianism”) simply embrace the troubling concept of double predestination and refer to “lesser” views of Calvinism as being “inconsistent.”

One scholar accurately observed:

Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. ‘The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it’ (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine)

 

[Rockson]

Parse your words all you like. But you have placed God in a causal chain at the very beginning of it.

Further you have God determining all of man's sin. How you can have God determining man';s sin and not have him as the ultimate

cause of man's sin would be a great mystery

It really came down I'd say that they played a game of bluff to the world and hoped they could cause people to get over their glowing inconsistency. They clearly saw the scripture stated God doesn't tempt one Jm 1:13 (or compel them to sin) and yet they still wanted it to be God ordains EVERYTHING.

Their response is merely to deny their ordaining doctrine compels men to sin. . In so doing they've rammed a square peg into a round hole stepping back and claiming it all looks fine. It doesn't however and never will. Question is though will they be able to achieve talking people into twisting their minds to accept such an abnormal way of looking at the clear words of Jm 1:13 God DOES NOT tempt men to sin. Unfortunately some have fallen for it. It's great however to see some recover themselves from this great error and accept the James verse for EXACTLY what exactly what it says. Trusting and hoping others will do the same. .

 

[Rockson]

Personally I think the word " Calvinist " is always perceived as what Calvin taught but there are many within that group that differ from what he taught, so we cannot lump everyone together and throw the baby out with the bath water.

You know none of us want to see anybody thrown out but I get what you mean.

There are moderate Calvinists, high Calvinists, ultra Calvinists and hyper Calvinists (the last of which most Calvinists would disavow completely).

I don't know the differences between all these types but I do know the differences of some. It all comes down to this for me. Do they believe God ordains some to be saved and others to be lost and he did this before they were born. To ordain is an action word meaning he took action of some type to guarantee it.

Those different types above have different roads they go down to get to that same place....God ordains ones to be saved and others not......or God will release what Calvs call irresistible grace....some to others and others not. If all the types above hold to the same line of thinking regardless of how they phrase it, it still comes down in my way of thinking to the same thing.

 

[TomL]

It really came down I'd say that they played a game of bluff to the world and hoped they could cause people to get over their glowing inconsistency. They clearly saw the scripture stated God doesn't tempt one Jm 1:13 (or compel them to sin) and yet they still wanted it to be God ordains EVERYTHING.

Their response is merely to deny their ordaining doctrine compels men to sin. . In so doing they've rammed a square peg into a round hole stepping back and claiming it all looks fine. It doesn't however and never will. Question is though will they be able to achieve talking people into twisting their minds to accept such an abnormal way of looking at the clear words of Jm 1:13 God DOES NOT tempt men to sin. Unfortunately some have fallen for it. It's great however to see some recover themselves from this great error and accept the James verse for EXACTLY what exactly what it says. Trusting and hoping others will do the same. .

Sledgehammered it in

 

[Aeliana]

Logically if God decreed all the sin of man he would be the author of it

but then again he did not decree all of the sin of man

Right he did not. There's actually no need for him to do that since we are all quite capable of sinning on our own.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well, sir. You have accomplished what you set out to do. You have convinced me that it is not the Calvinists after all, that are the contentious and antagonistic ones. Have a good day.

@civic , thanks for the invite. It has been fun. But I've had enough.

Poor thing. Men speak their minds. Children fuss about about everything.......

I mean seriously, am I suppose to pretend that you even care about your brothers in Adam? You take pleasure in their misery all in the "name of God".

Don't pretend anything otherwise, you're running away from the truth.