Grace vs obedience

xapis

Soli Deo gloria!
Jul 1, 2004
2,022
254
Lambsburg, VA
Visit site
✟10,964.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Still there is no difference between first and second causes.

Of course there is! What say you about this:

God created Satan > Satan rebelled and was cast out of heaven > Satan convinced Eve to sin > Eve convinced Adam to sin > etc...

This is a simplistic overview. But by your declaration that there is no difference between first and second causes, would you "blame" God for causing Adam to sin considering this chain of events?
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟8,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Of course there is! What say you about this:

God created Satan > Satan rebelled and was cast out of heaven > Satan convinced Eve to sin > Eve convinced Adam to sin > etc...

This is a simplistic overview. But by your declaration that there is no difference between first and second causes, would you "blame" God for causing Adam to sin considering this chain of events?

God created Satan > God ordained that Satan rebelled and was cast out of heaven > God ordained that Satan convinced Eve to sin > God ordained that Eve convinced Adam to sin > etc...

There is no meaningful second cause. If there is a second cause that is outside of God's control then God is not responsible for all things. You imply by your statement that Satan's actions were outside of God's control. If that is true then the first sentence of chapter 3 of the Westminster confession is false.
 
Upvote 0

xapis

Soli Deo gloria!
Jul 1, 2004
2,022
254
Lambsburg, VA
Visit site
✟10,964.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
If there is a second cause that is outside of God's control then God is not responsible for all things.

If you can't understand the difference between making something happen and allowing it to happen, then I can't help you. God is not arbitrary. Just because God foreordains something to come to pass doesn't make Him the author of it.

You imply by your statement that Satan's actions were outside of God's control. If that is true then the first sentence of chapter 3 of the Westminster confession is false.

No. I do not imply that. You assume that implication because your thoughts are clouded with faulty presuppositions.
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟8,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you can't understand the difference between making something happen and allowing it to happen, then I can't help you. God is not arbitrary. Just because God foreordains something to come to pass doesn't make Him the author of it.



No. I do not imply that. You assume that implication because your thoughts are clouded with faulty presuppositions.
But this disagrees with you link to the Westminster Confession.

From your link

That God must have decreed all future things, is a conclusion which necessarily flows from his foreknowledge, independence, and immutability. "The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree, for God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had decreed they should be; and that because things would not be future, unless he had decreed they should be." If God be an independent being, all creatures must have an entire dependence upon him; but this dependence proves undeniably that all their acts must be regulated by his sovereign will. If God be of one mind, which none can change, he must have unalterably fixed everything in his purpose which he effects in his providence.

By your Confession of faith, all of mens acts must be regulated by God's will.

R.C. Sproul said in his book that God must control everything down to the actions of each and every molecule lest one molecule do something wrong thus preventing God's plan from being carried out. (Look it up. I paraphrased the passage because I don't have his book in front of me.)

Between your link to the confession and Sproul's description of what divine sovereignty, there can be no such thing as a second cause that is not under God's direct control!

Was Pharaoh's persecution of Israel an second cause outside of God's control or was God directly using Pharaoh to show Israel His glory?
 
Upvote 0

xapis

Soli Deo gloria!
Jul 1, 2004
2,022
254
Lambsburg, VA
Visit site
✟10,964.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
You're still calling apples oranges. God is sovereign over all things. But now we have officially entered into broken-record territory. I'm not interested in getting sucked into a circular argument with you.

:sigh: ..................:sleep:

Come back after you read this and we'll talk some more: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟8,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're still calling apples oranges. God is sovereign over all things. But now we have officially entered into broken-record territory. I'm not interested in getting sucked into a circular argument with you.

:sigh: ..................:sleep:

Come back after you read this and we'll talk some more: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm

I see, you have no good answer so you push me off to somebody else and hope I will drop it. Typical.
(I note you didn't even attempt a reply to my points. Why?)
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟8,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You don't understand the answer. I'm sorry for that but what more can I do?
What answer? You assert that you provided some answer and that I'm just to stupid understand. Your tactic is intellectually dishonest. Your "answer" as a link to a web site. Very sad attempt to hide your inability to provide a reasoned answer.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
No one here is arguing that we have all the answers :thumbsup:

Was Pharaoh's persecution of Israel an second cause outside of God's control or was God directly using Pharaoh to show Israel His glory?

God is in control of all things. Your response please! :)

This is a good little sermon which I trust you will have a read of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xapis
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

wnwall

Active Member
Aug 18, 2007
110
24
✟7,906.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure this debate is much more than semantics, but I really enjoy the way Edwards explained the relation between God and our sin, and perhaps it would be of some help here. He said it was like the relationship between the sun and cold and darkness. It isn't the sun that is the cause of cold and darkness but the lack of the sun.

I'll give you Edwards' words,

If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness, it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun. . . . sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence. . . .

God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xapis
Upvote 0

Beoga

Sola Scriptura
Feb 2, 2004
3,362
225
Visit site
✟19,681.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
I tried. The whole thing falls apart in the firs sentence of chapter 3. If you'll allow me to paraphrase, it says something like this, God has ordained everything that happens except for acts of evil. The two clauses contradict each other. If God has ordained everything then He had to ordain evil acts as well. If God did not ordain evil acts then He did not ordain everything. I am an engineer and I cannot accept that contradiction.

This is an inaccurate paraphrase. A better (though for certain not perfect) would be to say that God ordains everything to come to pass, including sin and evil, however, God is not guilty of sin.
There is a distinction between and direct cause or author and a ultimate cause. God being the sovereign creator over all, is the ultimate cause of all things, but He is not the direct cause of everything.
For example, I am the direct cause or author of this response. I am the one typing the words and coming up with the sentences and paragraphs. It is not God typing out these words. God is the ultimate cause. He is the one that sovereignly decreed that I should respond at this very moment. He even decreed the words I would use. Throughout my life God has set me up for this moment to type these words. It must be remembered though, that I am the one typing out these words and not God.

Because the Word is preached out of the Bible. When the Word would seem to contradict itself we turn to the rest of the Bible to clarify the contradiction.

A creed is an explanation based in Scripture (or at least it should be). Like preachers, there are some good ones and there are some bad ones. The Scriptures are the judge of this. This is why the protestant doctrine was SolA Scriptura, not SolO Scriptura. Solo Scriptura claims no need for those things God has ordained to help us in understanding the truths He has revealed in Scripture. Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are the final authority, judging all things. However, this does not leave room for someone to be isolated by themselves. By your reasoning, we should throw out any piece in written form that attempts to explain truths revealed in Scripture be all we need is our bibles and every Christian has equal capability at accessing what is revealed in Scripture.

We have no need for a creed or catechism to help us understand what the Bible says. That is why God gave us the Bible - to teach us His ways.

We have no need for books or sermons to understand what the Bible says. We have no need to fellowship with other believers to discuss what the Bible reveals. We have no need to be a Timothy to all of the Pauls that have come before us. God gave us the Bible and He has left us to ourselves, without the aid of others.
This is simply nonsense.

I would never accept a creed or catechism or confession as binding in any way. Martin Luther looked at he creeds, catechisms and confesions of the Catholic church and started the Protestant movement. His main idea was to return the church he loved back to the teachings of Bible. Man made interpretations of the Bible may have good aspects. As soon as those interpretations take on the weight of dogma then Satan has won another church away from God.

Then we have no binding truth. A creed is an expression and a categorization of the truths revealed in Scripture. As someone has already pointed out, everyone has a creed, even if it was written in an organized manner 400 years ago.
Tell, would you allow someone to partake in the Lord's Table if they denied the deity of Christ? If someone affirmed pantheism, would they be allowed to be in leadership in your church congregation? Or do you hold people to a certain standard of doctrinal beliefs in order to partake of these special roles in your church? If so, how do you determine this standard and relay it to people?
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟8,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No one here is arguing that we have all the answers :thumbsup:
I'm not asking for all the answers, just one.

I have presented several arguments regarding a contradiction I see in the Westminster. The responses I have seen are either I'm to dense to see the difference or just a link back to the Westminster.

How do you resolve, in your own mind, this contradiction?

Even if your answer is something like you see no contradiction because you accept by faith that no contradiction exists. At least something like that is at least an honest answer!
 
Upvote 0

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟8,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is an inaccurate paraphrase. A better (though for certain not perfect) would be to say that God ordains everything to come to pass, including sin and evil, however, God is not guilty of sin.
There is a distinction between and direct cause or author and a ultimate cause. God being the sovereign creator over all, is the ultimate cause of all things, but He is not the direct cause of everything.
For example, I am the direct cause or author of this response. I am the one typing the words and coming up with the sentences and paragraphs. It is not God typing out these words. God is the ultimate cause. He is the one that sovereignly decreed that I should respond at this very moment. He even decreed the words I would use. Throughout my life God has set me up for this moment to type these words. It must be remembered though, that I am the one typing out these words and not God.
And this makes you responsible how? You are a secretary taking dictation. There is nothing on your part that is either original or unscripted.



Beoga said:
A creed is an explanation based in Scripture (or at least it should be). Like preachers, there are some good ones and there are some bad ones. The Scriptures are the judge of this. This is why the protestant doctrine was SolA Scriptura, not SolO Scriptura. Solo Scriptura claims no need for those things God has ordained to help us in understanding the truths He has revealed in Scripture. Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are the final authority, judging all things. However, this does not leave room for someone to be isolated by themselves. By your reasoning, we should throw out any piece in written form that attempts to explain truths revealed in Scripture be all we need is our bibles and every Christian has equal capability at accessing what is revealed in Scripture.
And which of the many creed is correct One?



Beoga said:
We have no need for books or sermons to understand what the Bible says. We have no need to fellowship with other believers to discuss what the Bible reveals. We have no need to be a Timothy to all of the Pauls that have come before us. God gave us the Bible and He has left us to ourselves, without the aid of others.
This is simply nonsense.
I agree. God gave us each other and raised some of us to teachers. Remember what Paul said about following this teacher or that?



Beoga said:
Then we have no binding truth.
What do you think the Bible is?
Beoga said:
A creed is an expression and a categorization of the truths revealed in Scripture. As someone has already pointed out, everyone has a creed, even if it was written in an organized manner 400 years ago.
And which creed is the true creed? Here is a list
Beoga said:
Tell, would you allow someone to partake in the Lord's Table if they denied the deity of Christ?
I am not their judge. If I knew that they did not believe then I would advise them not to partake.
Beoga said:
If someone affirmed pantheism, would they be allowed to be in leadership in your church congregation?
No
Beoga said:
Or do you hold people to a certain standard of doctrinal beliefs in order to partake of these special roles in your church? If so, how do you determine this standard and relay it to people?
Yes, our church has a statement of faith. When we search for a Pastor we look for somebody who has a heart for God, not somebody who agrees with every point in the churches statement of faith. We put Jesus first, not what we think Jesus would have us believe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Beoga

Sola Scriptura
Feb 2, 2004
3,362
225
Visit site
✟19,681.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
And this makes you responsible how? You are a secretary taking dictation. There is nothing on your part that is either original or unscripted.

I am responsible for two reasons:
1. Knowledge/thinking is involved.
2. I am responsible because I am accountable for what I say or do. That is, I must give an account to someone (God) for what I say.

And which of the many creed is correct One?

I personally hold to the Westminster Standards. There are godly men who hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith and also men who hold to the Three Forms of Unity.
The Nicene Creed and The Athanasian Creed are good ones.

I agree. God gave us each other and raised some of us to teachers.

Except of course for those that came before us and wrote things down.

Remember what Paul said about following this teacher or that?

If speaking about 1 Corinthians, why not reference it. You claim to uphold Scripture, and right you should, but why not provide the Scripture to demonstrate the importance you claim to give it.
In dealing with 1 Corinthians, the culture was for different than our modern individualistic was. That is community and family and the honor or shame that comes with being identified with that particular family, teacher, or community. What Paul is dealing with is people that are seeking honor that would come with being identified with Paul or Apollos. Paul is correcting these people in saying that our teacher is Christ, and honor is to be found in him (the paradoxical thing about this, is that being identified with Christ brings great shame from the world, one reason is because you are identifying yourself with a foolish message). This is not to say that this does not go on today.
There is nothing wrong with teachers and preferring one teacher over another. The problem arises when we seek to find our worth and pride in that person (for him who boasts should boast in Christ alone).
For example those that call themselves "Calvinist," most of them do no seek to find their worth in Calvin. In fact, most of them would prefer the name "Christian," yet "Christian" is devoid of meaning nowadays because it means everything.

What do you think the Bible is? And which creed is the true creed? Here is a list

I have answered both of these questions before.

I am not their judge. If I knew that they did not believe then I would advise them not to partake.

Honest question, do you hold to the idea that whatever people believe, as long as they hold it dearly and "it is what the Spirit tells them" is all that matters?

So you do hold to a doctrinal standard (which is what creeds are) yet you chide others for doing so?

Yes, our church has a statement of faith. When we search for a Pastor we look for somebody who has a heart for God, not somebody who agrees with every point in the churches statement of faith. We put Jesus first, not what we think Jesus would have us believe.

Would Jesus have you say this? Every time you open your mouth to speak about things pertaining to Christianity, you are saying what you think Jesus would have us believe (or not believe). You fool yourself into thinking you do not hold to doctrinal standards, we who hold to doctrinal standards are honest and open about the ones we hold to making it easier on ourselves and everyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: edie19
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And this makes you responsible how? You are a secretary taking dictation. There is nothing on your part that is either original or unscripted.
Ah. So if you consent to something someone else says, then you're not responsible? If your parents conditioned you to do it, if events conspired to where you feel a certain way, then it's perfectly legitimate to act on that feeling? But you made the wrong leap: "You're just a secretary taking dictation." There is a difference here, Boxmaker. You are involved. You're not just a secretary taking dictation. But that doesn't mean you have to take an initiative totally independent of God.

The fact is, if you start with "original and unscripted" as being required for responsibility, you're simply begging the question. Deterministic views don't see things as original and unscripted. But they still assess responsibility.

We've been through this before boxmaker. You're derivative. Everything about you was caused by something or someone else. You are not an independent entity.

If you were, you'd be victim of the tyranny of a will independent of all else. The extremes don't work in this case. As an engineer certainly I can see that trying to create one extreme or the other is bound to cause failure in the idea of responsibility. Responsibility only works if there's a connection. Responsibility demands response and ability, both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xapis
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I have presented several arguments regarding a contradiction I see in the Westminster. The responses I have seen are either I'm to dense to see the difference or just a link back to the Westminster.

How do you resolve, in your own mind, this contradiction?

A contradiction between what exactly?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Boxmaker

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
596
9
Arvada, CO
✟8,292.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am responsible for two reasons:
1. Knowledge/thinking is involved.
2. I am responsible because I am accountable for what I say or do. That is, I must give an account to someone (God) for what I say.
That is not what you said. You Said:
Beoga said:
For example, I am the direct cause or author of this response. I am the one typing the words and coming up with the sentences and paragraphs. It is not God typing out these words. God is the ultimate cause. He is the one that sovereignly decreed that I should respond at this very moment. He even decreed the words I would use. Throughout my life God has set me up for this moment to type these words. It must be remembered though, that I am the one typing out these words and not God.

You are not the cause of anything. The only accounting you give is what exactly. God unchangeably decreed when you would respond and exactly what you would say. You did that as you had no choice to do otherwise. What accounting is due?
 
Upvote 0