God is sovereign over human behaviour and decisions

[FreeGrace2]

Please quote yourself where you have properly refuted the Westminster Confession.

Straight out of post #100 -

Seems none of the Calvinists have understood this, but this statement is internally contradicted. Grossly so.

First, it says, "God did ordain whatsoever comes to pass".

Second, it says, "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures"

Nope. Both cannot be true. IF God did ordain what occurs, THEN He DID ordain sin, and that would be in a causative sense.

If God ordained sin, then He IS the author of sin. Period. Anything you may offer in argument is wasted.

This contradicted statement attempts to be speaking out of both sides of the mouth, saying different and contradictory things. Can't have both.

The truth is that God ISN'T the author of sin. He didn't ordain it. He knew it would occur, and allowed it. Which is different than saying that He ordained it.

Example: David "ordained" the murder of Uriah the Hittite. iow, David was the author of the murder. He didn't actually carry out the deed, but he authored it.

Whoever "ordains" anything IS the author of it.

I suggest you mull this over. It's a serious flaw in Calvinism.

Now, if you can refute my refutation, refute away.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Couldn't God have stopped Adam from sinning by not allowing Satan in the Garden? Yes. By not even giving a law to disobey? Yes

Hmm. Seems God had an actual purpose for sin.

No, Biblically He had an actual SOLUTION for sin. You keep phrasing it as He "needed" sin to occur. That is nonsense. He knew it would occur, He permitted it, and He demonstrated His love for His creatures by providing the solution to it.

 

[Hammster]

I seriously think your calling my "posts" a document are a bit far fetched. But, ok, if you want to.

So, what in your own mind isn't so "organized" in my "document" as different confessions. Can you actually show me?

By organized, I mean in the way confessions are organized.

And your posts are documents. You look at scripture and tell us what you think it means. That's what those who've gone before us have done.

 

[Hammster]

No, Biblically He had an actual SOLUTION for sin. You keep phrasing it as He "needed" sin to occur. That is nonsense. He knew it would occur, He permitted it, and He demonstrated His love for His creatures by providing the solution to it.

God was most glorified at the Cross. No sin, no Cross.

 

[Hammster]

No, Biblically He had an actual SOLUTION for sin. You keep phrasing it as He "needed" sin to occur. That is nonsense. He knew it would occur, He permitted it, and He demonstrated His love for His creatures by providing the solution to it.

And He wouldn't have needed a solution if He had just not made a law to disobey.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Straight out of post #100 -

Now, if you can refute my refutation, refute away.

My apologies to both you and Apologetic_Warrior as I was unaware that he was making the same argument as me.

You seem to be quite stubborn in your definitions of "ordain" and "decree", the problem is that every time you try to define the terms in your own way, you argue against a strawman. Your interest should be in what the writers of the confession meant themselves, and then gear your argumentation accordingly.

Talk through this:

"Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, all that own the being of a God, own that He knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident that if He knows all things beforehand, He either doth approve of them or doth not approve of them, that is, He either is willing that they should be, or He is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be is to decree them." -Jonathan Edwards

 

[FreeGrace2]

By organized, I mean in the way confessions are organized.

Since most of my posts are corrections to all the misinterpretations of my view, why should they appear organized the way confessions are?

And your posts are documents. You look at scripture and tell us what you think it means. That's what those who've gone before us have done.

The big difference is that I can provide verses that actually SAY what I believe, unlike Calvinism, which has to claim that their views are taught by "inference" rather than specific wording of verses.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And He wouldn't have needed a solution if He had just not made a law to disobey.

Which is exactly WHY I had said this, which resulted in your reponse here:

No, Biblically He had an actual SOLUTION for sin. You keep phrasing it as He "needed" sin to occur. That is nonsense. He knew it would occur, He permitted it, and He demonstrated His love for His creatures by providing the solution to it.

The cross IS the SOLUTION to sin. He didn't need sin for a solution. He provided a solution for the sin that He knew was coming.

Do you see the difference or not? Just asking.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The big difference is that I can provide verses that actually SAY what I believe, unlike Calvinism, which has to claim that their views are taught by "inference" rather than specific wording of verses.

Ha. If you really think this is true then you need to take the ten pairs of blinders off you are wearing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My apologies to both you and Apologetic_Warrior as I was unaware that he was making the same argument as me.

No problem. You're forgiven before you confess.

You seem to be quite stubborn in your definitions of "ordain" and "decree", the problem is that every time you try to define the terms in your own way, you argue against a strawman.

No, I'm arguing against the other poster's definition.

Your interest should be in what the writers of the confession meant themselves, and then gear your argumentation accordingly.

My interest is in knowing what Scripture says, not what confessions say.

Talk through this:

"Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, all that own the being of a God, own that He knows all things beforehand.

Not real clear to me. Such as, "all that own the being of a God, own that He knows all things beforehand". The real question is in the meaning of "decreed" here. Can you define what you mean by it? Then we can proceed.

Now, it is self-evident that if He knows all things beforehand, He either doth approve of them or doth not approve of them, that is, He either is willing that they should be, or He is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be is to decree them." -Jonathan Edwards

No problem with JE. Obviously all that occurs was permitted by God, or caused by Him.

My understanding of Calvinists is that "decree/ordain" seems to mean that what occurs is "brought into being by God". Such a phrase suggests that God is the force behind it occurring, which I don't agree with.

I've had intense discussions with Calvinists who actually claim that God is the cause of sin. Which is absurd.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Ha. If you really think this is true then you need to take the ten pairs of blinders off you are wearing.

I'll prove it to you.

I believe that Christ died for everyone.

Heb 2:9 says exactly that! I know how the Calvinists squeeze that verse, but they cannot provide any verse that SAYS that Christ didn't die for everyone, or that He died ONLY for some.

 

[Hammster]

Since most of my posts are corrections to all the misinterpretations of my view, why should they appear organized the way confessions are?

I never said that they should.

The big difference is that I can provide verses that actually SAY what I believe, unlike Calvinism, which has to claim that their views are taught by "inference" rather than specific wording of verses.

You should read the confessions. You'd see how silly this statement is.

 

[Hammster]

Which is exactly WHY I had said this, which resulted in your reponse here:

The cross IS the SOLUTION to sin. He didn't need sin for a solution. He provided a solution for the sin that He knew was coming.

Do you see the difference or not? Just asking.

I'll try again. He wouldn't have needed a solution for sin if there hasn't been sin. There wouldn't have been sin if He hasn't given a law to disobey. Or if He hadn't let Satan in the Garden. Or if He would have intervened before Adam sinned.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

My understanding of Calvinists is that "decree/ordain" seems to mean that what occurs is "brought into being by God". Such a phrase suggests that God is the force behind it occurring, which I don't agree with.

"Decree" and "ordain" are quite similar, but technically separate terms which Shedd defines quite well in his Dogmatic Theology. Simply speaking, ordain would be to plan, decree would be to set in stone. Technically "ordain" or "decree" have nothing active about them other within the eternal God. All that happens is in accordance with what was eternally decreed. It does not suggest that God is actively bringing about all contained within the decree ; there is also a passive or permissiveness which is just as much a part of it. This is what the quote by Jonathan Edwards is saying; all that occurs was willed to occur by God before it ever happens. Logically, this is seemingly a necessary belief for all Christians, whether accepted or not.

I've had intense discussions with Calvinists who actually claim that God is the cause of sin. Which is absurd.

Then they are not representatives of true Reformed theology and that which was proposed by John Calvin (and those before him). While the cause of sin and hamartiology is quite an in depth and huge study in and of itself, my simple understanding is that the moment that God created something outside of Himself, the possibility for sin became real. Since sin could be defined as any action or position by a volitional being in opposition to God and His essence, and which technically has no ontological existence (it would destroy itself), it is not necessary that God be the author of it, and instead is caused by a being apart from Him. Since sin is an opposite of God, it is only right and logical that it have its manifestation outside of Him as well. But to will its existence? Nothing occurs that is not the will of God. This is the point of the quote.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I'll prove it to you.

I believe that Christ died for everyone.

Heb 2:9 says exactly that! I know how the Calvinists squeeze that verse, but they cannot provide any verse that SAYS that Christ didn't die for everyone, or that He died ONLY for some.

Well what do you mean by "for"? Did He procure salvation for all, and now all are saved? And if He fully absorbed the wrath of God for all (including the reprobate), then why must the wrath of God be poured out on them for eternity?

I have no desire to debate until terms are defined. Otherwise, again we argue against strawmen.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'll try again. He wouldn't have needed a solution for sin if there hasn't been sin.

And I'll try again. He provided the solution before the need for the solution. Because He is omniscient. You're getting the "cart before the horse".

There wouldn't have been sin if He hasn't given a law to disobey.

Sounds as you believe the Law created sin. is that right?

Or if He hadn't let Satan in the Garden. Or if He would have intervened before Adam sinned.

Or, or, or, or. Lots of "if's". Let's stick with "what is", not "what if".

God provided the solution for sin before sin occurred. Agree or disagree?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well what do you mean by "for"?

I mean, on behalf of. He died specifically FOR their sins (1 Jn 2:2).

Did He procure salvation for all, and now all are saved?

I know this may be hard for you to understand, but "yes and no". The "yes" is that He actually purchased eternal life for everyone (Heb 9:12), but "no" to the second part, because God saves only those who believe. In fact, He is well pleased to save those who believe. 1 Cor 1:21

And if He fully absorbed the wrath of God for all (including the reprobate), then why must the wrath of God be poured out on them for eternity?

He didn't "absorb the wrath of God". He paid the judicial penalty. When a judge sentences a criminal, does he do it with anger etc? No.

I have no desire to debate until terms are defined. Otherwise, again we argue against strawmen.

Well, I've defined my terms. What's left for me to define. And thanks for wanting to know my definitions. Many of the posters simply jump in and assume a whole of stuff that isn't my view.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

He didn't "absorb the wrath of God". He paid the judicial penalty. When a judge sentences a criminal, does he do it with anger etc? No.

The judicial penalty for sin to suffer the full wrath of God... His righteousness demands it. Jesus suffered the full wrath of God, that is, separation and death. Are you disagreeing with this concept?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The "yes" is that He actually purchased eternal life for everyone (Heb 9:12)

How does Hebrews 9:12 state that He purchased eternal life for everyone?

 

[Hammster]

And I'll try again. He provided the solution before the need for the solution. Because He is omniscient. You're getting the "cart before the horse".


Sounds as you believe the Law created sin. is that right?


Or, or, or, or. Lots of "if's". Let's stick with "what is", not "what if".

God provided the solution for sin before sin occurred. Agree or disagree?

When the solution was provided is irrelevant. Why it was needed is relevant. And if God had not wanted sin to occur, it wouldn't have happened. You make it sound like God had to provide a solution since He knew it was inevitable.