dave_l — 2017-11-06T07:37:48-05:00 — #1
Here is a short but powerful explanation of the classic Reformed view by two favorite theologians.
gao_lu — 2017-11-06T18:41:57-05:00 — #2
Good find. I also deeply appreciate these great theologians.
1. True: "...in no way violating the will of man"
2. True: "God ordains everything that comes to pass....in a certain sense...you have to use that qualifier carefully..."
3. False: "God ordains my sin....beacuse it comes to pass..." [Note how uncomfortable he is saying that at 1:21+ and the uncertain logic] "..but that does not mean, however, that God is the author of evil..." [Note how Sproul fumbles around with wishy-washy attempts at some elusive "secondary cause"--poor guy]
4. True: "Evil is evil....it is improper to call good evil or evil good..."
5. False: "'Permitting' is a weak answer, because it is more than 'permitting'" [much nervous laughter]
6. Partially True: "At the very least, God chooses to let me do it, rather than not let me do it...God is capable of stopping me...chooses not to stop me...[fumbling]...in a...certain sense ordained it. "
1. True: "He doesn't stop us, because it serves His ultimate glory to allow us to do it, otherwise..."
2. True: [Lots of good explanations about why God permits evil (never does he say God causes it)]
3. True: "What if God allows vessels of wrath...to display his attributes/glory...my guess is..." [Indeed God "allows" such--though I highly doubt it is for the purpose of displaying God's glory. That would be absurd.]
4. False: "...your salvation, which is a result of your sin..." [Nah, MacArthur. Serious, glaring miss. I forgive him.]
Overall a lot of good stuff in this video.
Dave, what you say and what I hear these men saying doesn't resemble much. Perhaps you just take their "speculative inch" and drag it out to an absurd mile?
dave_l — 2017-11-07T06:13:35-05:00 — #3
Thanks for taking time to view this. If you can show at least one discrepancy between what they presented and what I present, I would appreciate hearing the details. The only thing I notice is that they mention "permissive will" as if they might be embarrassed by the concept.
However I do not believe God "permits" anything. Since he furnishes the design and power behind every act. Permissive will is like saying I plugged the fan in, and the electricity permitted the blades to spin.
gao_lu — 2017-11-07T06:34:18-05:00 — #4
Apparent contradictions (correct me where I am wrong about what you think):
- You do not believe man has a real will or can choose or independently act on his will. Sproul does.
- You think man has no free will, or that God overrides or prescribes it. Sproul says, "in a certain sense.." ackowledges that God does not fully override the will of man.
- You say God is the author of evil. Actually, God is good and will not do what is evil. Sproul agrees.
- You say God does not "permit" man to do as he chooses. Sproul says, that in some measure God does permit this.
- You say God does not allow us free choice. MacArther says God allows it to reveal God's glory
There are several more. Is that enough?
dave_l — 2017-11-07T06:43:05-05:00 — #5
False. I have always said man freely chooses according to the reasons God sends.
False again. I have always said man freely chooses according to the reasons God sends.
False again. I say God causes sin (just as you do. Foreseen or otherwise by creating it knowing it is inevitable). I always say people are the "Author" of sin. God is the first cause. Secondary causes are the Author.
"in some measure" is pretty evasive. And seemed almost an embarrassment to any on the panel mentioning it.
gao_lu — 2017-11-07T06:51:35-05:00 — #6
False, You are pretending God's coercion is "free will." I am Sproul and Macarthur are (I think) talking about REAL free will.
False. See above.
False. I do not say God causes sin. I say He does not.
False. If God is the cause, then He is the author. People are not the author if God is the cause. That is logically impossible.
TRUE! Yay! At last! You got one right (but for the wrong reason).Yes, the term is evasive. It is an utterly weak way to admit Man actually, clearly has free will.
dave_l — 2017-11-07T07:00:34-05:00 — #7
God does not coerce anyone. People want to sin because of their nature and because of the opportunities they deem best.
Even if God did coerce people, they would still want to sin for who can resist his will? “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”” (Romans 9:19)
If you believe God foresaw sin, and then created what he foresaw, you believe he created sin.
I defined my terms and you are twisting them. Again, God is the first cause. Secondary causes are the Author. They are not the same.
How can God "permit" anything that he energises? Permit = man wanting to sin according to his nature and secondary causes.
gao_lu — 2017-11-07T07:49:18-05:00 — #8
dave_l — 2017-11-07T08:39:48-05:00 — #9
A merry heart does good like a medicine.
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; A time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; A time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; A time of war, and a time of peace. What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there. I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?” (Ecclesiastes 3)
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-07T14:23:24-05:00 — #10
R.C. Sproul / John Mac Arthur .... they may be well known, highly successful (in selling and profiting from their lectures and writings), but I miss integrity, consistency, objectivity when reading / quoting Scripture and setting forth a clear and precise position/understanding to which they hold in regards to what Scripture teaches.
Seems, like Gao_Lu as well noticed the "wishy washy" manner in which some points were made and at times there was even a "backing up from a previous statement made" ...
dave_l — 2017-11-07T14:40:23-05:00 — #11
I believe the portion about "permissive will" was sub par. I do not make a living from ministering the word so I'm perhaps more blunt. I like both speakers but find serious flaws in some of their doctrinal holdings. I believe they did a good job on this excerpt over-all.
gao_lu — 2017-11-07T17:22:59-05:00 — #12
- God did not create men to have a nature that only wanted to sin.
- People sin because they are drawn away by desires and enticed--a choice.
- The "nature" of a person is the common inclination of the will to not obey God. That is not God's flaw--that is man's free will.
- Sadly, all have sinned per #3 and all have failed--thus we say it is the nature of men to choose sin.He is entirely capable of not sinning--as we see in Jesus Christ.
What a horrible god you describe in this false doctrine. God does not will for people to sin. That is bunk. You say God has no will at all; I (being right) say He does and that His will is for his people to be righteous. He, (being God and all), is able and willing to permit people to freely choose.
God, of course, foresaw sin, but God does not create sin. That is blasphemy. God allows free will and foresaw that transgression of His will would happen. He had a plan of redemption for that.
"In a sense" (that always sounds like a copout, but I will use it for humor) from our limited human perspective, I understand why some people say God has some responsibility in that He permits people to sin and He has the option not to permit them free will. However, authentic humanness can't exist without free will, so God gave out a lot of leash so real humans could have real faith and authentic love. God is awesome! In the end, God has a crash-plan and is ultimately sovereign. So don't worry about a thing. God grants free will and is still utterly sovereign.
I despise twisting other peoples words--so thanks for bringing this up. Please do so vigorously.
On the other hand, I think you are making up this whole Secondary Cause thing. You are trying to let God off the hook of your bad sovereignty theology by pretending an elusive, wishy-washy, pretend, undefined "thing" exists that doesn't.
If you understand the basics of the philosophical notions of Primary Cause and Secondary Cause--they just don't mean how you use them here. Not close. Secondary Cause is a created being designed with capacity to also "cause," whose causality is independent within the range of capability granted by the Primary Cause.
A secondary cause is not a cause at all if the Primary Cause does all the causing. The secondary cause is not a cause at all if its cause is not independent of the Primary Cause.
Let's be done with pretending Secondary Cause is some kind of undefined, spooky, theological magic that makes things the opposite of what they are.
Why not? Happens all the time.
dave_l — 2017-11-08T08:04:05-05:00 — #13
God created Adam sinless. But Adam wanted to sin as soon as God told him not to giving him a law.
True, but being born sinners on account of Adam's sin, they want to sin and tell lies from the womb (Psalm 58:3).
As I've said many times, people freely choose to sin according to their nature and according to the reasons they based their choice on. God controls all things, including their choices through the reasons he sends.
First, your claim of people being able to stop sinning by willing it, is Pelagianism. Condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 as heresy.
Secondly “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good, who are accustomed to doing evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23)
What about Pharaoh?
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,” (Ephesians 1:4–5)
He predestined us to be holy, not because we were.
If God foresaw sin and created it, he caused it. But as I've always said, Adam was the author, who wanted to sin or he would not have.
If Adam had never sinned he would have been free to eat from every tree in the garden except the forbidden tree = the extent of Adam's free will. Adam lost free will when he sinned. God removed the privilege of eating from the tree of life. And God drove him from the garden. So Adam was only free to sin under the curse. If Adam had been free to repent and return to his original condition, would he not have?
I learned about it from the Westminster Confession.
I'm using standard terms of cause and effect. The effect causes more effects, that causes more effects and so on. So I use secondary cause and Author to describe the effects of the original cause.
We can plug in a fan and say the electricity permitted the blades to turn. And be telling the truth in a clumsy way. Or we can say the electricity caused the blades to spin. And become more detailed in our description.
gao_lu — 2017-11-08T16:28:09-05:00 — #14
Oh dear! Ya think so? Where did you learn what Pelagianism is? Google is your friend.
Some people will condemn almost anyone. Living in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they can hang out of the top of the tree and spot a sinner a mile away. Impressive.
God did not will Pharaoh (however you spell it) to sin. He took a sinner who was plenty willing to sin and used him to accomplish another purpose. Judas, even Peter an Paul, and heaven forbid, you and I have been the same. God can move in a man's heart one way or the other but, although entirely possible, I suspect God hardening Pharaoh's heart wasn't even a titch against Pharaoh's will.
We profoundly agree. Bless our hearts!
If God created it then He caused it. He didn't create it or cause it either one. Do I sound like a broken record? (Wish I had one--would save a lot of typing!)
Wait. What? Are you saying that God could not foresee sin? (I doubt it). Are you saying Adam was the author of sin? Now you have me wrapped around the axel. Get me loose! Either that or you have sneaked around to my way of thinking (which is, of course, right!). Adam is the author of his own sin. God isn't. God is still sovereign. Seeing some light?
Is that what you call "free?"
Although the Bible does not record all Adam and eve's emotions, there is ample evidence they did in fact repent. Repenting didn't return them to original condition. Doesn't for you or me either. I know a great godly evangelist who lost both legs in a drunk driving accident while an athiest. He repented, became a sort-of-preacher---but didn't get his legs back (he will someday).
So, no, Adam would not have.
That explains why you even have the Westminster confession so brutalized. Learn what the words mean and then return to talk about them--but don't pawn off made-up definitions and waste our precious time arguing nonsense. I thought you knew what you were talking about, at first.
180 degrees off. Your use isn't any standard term (you did spell them correctly). You are kidding no one...your description is that of a Primary Cause alone.
What happens with God isn't all that complex in this case. God is sovereign. He created very real people with very real free will. They do not have unlimited free-will like God has, but have it they do! Nothing difficult to explain here. Move along.
dave_l — 2017-11-09T05:49:24-05:00 — #15
This is Pelagianism.
gao_lu — 2017-11-09T06:03:20-05:00 — #16
No, it isn't. Dave's personal secret dictionary at work again. Pelagius believed in Free Will which is about all that is in common. Comical that you think Jesus was Pelagian.
dave_l — 2017-11-09T06:09:42-05:00 — #17
Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431). https://www.theopedia.com/pelagianism
gao_lu — 2017-11-09T06:13:42-05:00 — #18
Sleep well, Dave.
fred — 2017-11-09T13:48:01-05:00 — #19
He's (Dave) is not making it up. I have read about it often (and agree with Dave).
Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way (secondary cause): but the LORD directeth his steps (first cause). If the Lord directs the steps of a man, is it not proof that he is being controlled or governed by God?
Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man’s mind (secondary cause), But it is the Lord’s purpose for him that will stand (be carried out). (first cause)
Proverbs 20:1 The king’s heart (secondary cause) is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it whichever way He wishes. (first cause)
God is First Cause as He is NOT the effect of anything.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-09T14:22:28-05:00 — #20
very strange ideas of what "primary CAUSE" and "secondary CAUSE" are ... those verses quoted seem to have nothing to do with "CAUSES" in the first place ....
next page →