Why did Adam sin?
Forum category
Did he in some way have to sin or did he freely choose to sin?
- 132 views
[James K] Did he in some way have to sin or did he freely choose to sin?Yes!
God’s plans were eternally established before the foundation of the world; there was no thwarting them in any way. In that sense, it was impossible for Adam not to sin unless you are going to strip God’s Sovereignty from Him. However, no one forced Adam to sin contrary to his desires and decisions. He chose to sin. In that sense, Adam freely chose to sin.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]Your assertion assumes a prescriptive causation in the exercise of divine sovereignty. This is one of the fundamental missteps of Augustinian/Calvinistic theological rationalism. And rationalism being what it is, when it is the substantial influence of theological formulations they are lent to extremes and often disregard prior boundaries. And here is one of those boundaries. In pursuit of their efforts they may acknowledge such issues but prefer to retroactively fit them into their primary scheme instead of allowing them their proper influence in the process. And this is often the case of Augustine and Calvin.[James K] Did he in some way have to sin or did he freely choose to sin?Yes!
God’s plans were eternally established before the foundation of the world; there was no thwarting them in any way. In that sense, it was impossible for Adam not to sin unless you are going to strip God’s Sovereignty from Him. However, no one forced Adam to sin contrary to his desires and decisions. He chose to sin. In that sense, Adam freely chose to sin.
However, in the Scriptures divine sovereignty is not treated as a prescriptively causative agent. And this is what this statement reflects. Unfortunately the definition of sovereignty, through Augustinian/Calvinistic rationalism is assigned before treating many texts. That is, Augustine and those that followed, assign meaning to divine sovereignty much sooner than their approach to all relevant texts. Hence, when they come to texts such as these they must explain how divine sovereignty is laid upon this theological context. And they are left with but one assertion, that the way divine sovereignty acted is to decree Adam would sin, hence Adam did sin, but of his own free will. Or, “everything that happens is ultimately because God willed it to happen for His own good purposes”. These are contradictions to say the least.
And you will find, instead of the term divine sovereignty the term absolute sovereignty or absolute divine sovereignty being used by such students and teachers so as to make clear their emphasis in their understanding of sovereignty. This is an unnecessary distinction and redundant if one employs the accepted meaning of sovereignty and subsequent to that, the meaning of divine sovereignty which would be a mix of the two words, one referring to God and one referring to his rule. It is not democratic in other words, it is sovereign.
But in Scripture there is no treatment of sovereignty as absolute, this term errs. Its treatment is that of supreme, highest, greatest and final. And so, in the superintendence of divine sovereignty God grants to men and angels their wills which are exercised at their discretion. God does not take over their agency, directly or indirectly.
One article that treats this issue to a degree:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/09/religion-in-news-god-gets-s… Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament at Asbury Seminary, joins the discussion on John Piper’s I-35 theodicy.
Is there no such thing in their vocabulary as God’s permissive will? And even if there is— what good is it for them to talk about God’s permissive will, if in fact they think that God pre-ordains both what he permits as well as what he does directly?
I would suggest that there are some significant theological flies (or gadflies) in this whole ointment. Let’s start for a second with the book of Job. There is this little story about Satan being allowed to tempt or test Job using a whole slew of disasters, natural or otherwise. Now clearly enough God allows this to happen, but do you really want to claim that God predestined the Devil to do his work? Isn’t Satan’s work evil? Is God the author of evil? I think not.
Or think for a moment about the Beelzebul controversy in Mark 3. Jesus is accused of being in league with Satan. Now notice how Jesus responds to this charge. He doesn’t say, “I couldn’t do otherwise, because God foreordained me to do this, whether in league with Satan or on my own.” No, Jesus calls it blasphemy! To attribute the work of God to the work of the Devil is ‘blaspheming the Holy Spirit’ who only does good always. Now the corollary of this is also true. To attribute the work of the Devil to the work of God is also blasphemy. Careful Rev. Piper, you might being falling under this warning Jesus gave here to his interlocuctors….
…Oh yes and one more thing. Consider James 1 for a moment. Here James reminds us that when we are tempted, we should never say ‘God is tempting me’, because not only can God not be tempted to do anything wicked or evil, God himself tempts no one! Did you catch that? No one. But the Bible is clear enough that Satan does tempt people and yet it does not come from God. And here in James 1, James says that actually the ultimate source of the rot in this cases is the sinful desires of the human heart that lead humans to misbehave. This is interesting because it implies that James thinks there are other viable actors in the human drama besides God, and that God has not rigged the drama such that angels, demons and humans will inevitably dance to a pre-ordained divine script. Indeed, he thinks that some behavior of humans, and the Devil, and others, is antithetical to the will of God, whether revealed or hidden. Falleness and its effects was not a part of God’s perfect plan for his relationship with human beings.
Alex, either God is Sovereign, or you must accept Open Theism. There is no middle ground here. Either God is in control, or God is not in control. You err when you ascribe Sovereignty to God and then limit it in any way.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Alex, either God is Sovereign, or you must accept Open Theism. There is no middle ground here. Either God is in control, or God is not in control. You err when you ascribe Sovereignty to God and then limit it in any way.It seems that you are either unfamiliar with or simply unappreciative of a refined treatment of the topic. Castigation is not a rebuttal and it is evident that I should not anticipate your handling of any element of my response or the linked material. But let me hope for better.
Still, let me address your assertion that “you err when you ascribe Sovereignty to God and then limit it in any way”. Well, actually I already have addressed this in my post above, nevertheless I will consider it an opportunity for even more precision in demonstrating the mistake of rationalism. You assert a principle that cannot be supported in Scripture. You say divine sovereignty cannot be limited “in any way”.
By what theological construct are you proposing divine sovereignty is to be viewed as without limits? Sovereignty itself is not defined by a limitless rule, rather a supreme rule so from what source does this definition come? Because it is combined with “divine”, hence it is limitless? That would then mean all other attributes of God are limitless which is not true. God’s love is limited, it cannot accept sin and does not and never will. God’s justice is limited, it is limited to the divine. God’s omnipresence is limited, where those who are separated from God in eternity, God will not and cannot be. So if you are suggesting simply because sovereignty is qualified now with the word “divine” we must view it as being without limits, your mistake is immediately observable. But I will let you make this argument.
And this limit is true to God’s sovereignty. Again, sovereignty refers not to inexhaustible exercise but to supremacy, superiority, and finality. And where do we find God’s sovereignty in its exercise limited? He does not and cannot cause sin.
But you have the classic Augustinian/Calvinistic rationalistic misunderstanding of divine sovereignty and its nature and function. This view is that it is, in its essence, one of control and causation, and not rule and supremacy. Hence your application will find these kinds of dysfunctions that attempt to ascribe to God some ordination of sin or the choice of sin by man while out of the other side of your argument, you attempt to wash your hands by claiming that Adam sinned of his own free will.
As to Open Theism, I certainly reject it’s position and my hope is that you will discover that within the orthodox Protestant/Evangelical community there are many, many very sound teachers who both reject Open Theism and the A/C rationalistic approach to divine sovereignty.
In the mean time I re-invite you to respond to my first post and the arguments contained within as well as this one.
Actually, Jack, the verse you quoted (Acts 2:23) is a perfect example of exactly what I described initially. By definition, true Sovereignty is unlimited. Only God is Sovereign; He is Sovereign in that He is free and capable to do anything He choses to do. To limit God’s ability to do anything He choses to do, to limit His Sovereignty, can ultimately only lead to one position - Open Theism. As I said, either God is in control, or He is not. There is no middle ground.
As a side note, I did not realize you made an argument in your initial statement, I do not see where you linked to anything in your initial post, and I wasn’t responding to you anyway. I was responding directly to Alex’s post. Glad you feel free to jump into the conversation, but perhaps you can forgo the denigrating comments in the future.
As a side note, I did not realize you made an argument in your initial statement, I do not see where you linked to anything in your initial post, and I wasn’t responding to you anyway. I was responding directly to Alex’s post. Glad you feel free to jump into the conversation, but perhaps you can forgo the denigrating comments in the future.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Am I right in assuming that you think that God bears the ultimate responsibilty for the murder of the Lord Jesus?So your answer would be that God wasn’t in control of the murder of Jesus? And that God didn’t bring to pass Jesus’ death in accordance with His previously declared plan (Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 10:32-34, Luke 18:31-34)?
Am I right when I assume that you believe that in some way God compelled the murderers of the Lord Jesus to kill Him?
And Chip is the person with theological problems? Please.
Why would you believe in a God who doesn’t know everything and who can’t stop men from doing as they please?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jack, Acts 2:23 says the crucifixion happened according to the determinate counsel of God. What does the word determinate mean in your lexicon?
We have all agreed that God is not responsible for sin. Your answer to this so far has been that God was not in control of the situation, therefore, He was not responsible for sin. If God was not in control, He was not Sovereign. He could not be Sovereign at a time when He was not in control of events.
We have all agreed that God is not responsible for sin. Your answer to this so far has been that God was not in control of the situation, therefore, He was not responsible for sin. If God was not in control, He was not Sovereign. He could not be Sovereign at a time when He was not in control of events.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Is God responsible for Adam sinning in any way?
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Jack, if God decreed the crucifixion would happen, is there any way that the men who crucified Christ could have avoided the occasion? Is there any way they could have chosen not to crucify Christ and thwarted the determinate counsel of God? Is there any way that the first advent could have ended up with Jesus dying of natural causes in old age because mankind decided He was innocent and did not kill Him?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jack Hampton] Chip, you demand an answer to your questions from me but when I ask you a question you just ignore it.Sorry, Jack. I thought I answered your questions. What did I miss?
[Jack Hampton] To say that God must be limited in His actions by any edict of the past is to limit what He can do at the presnt time. Therefore the idea that He is limited in some way as to what He might or might not do is a denial of the sovereignty of God.This is the most convoluted case of circular reasoning I think I have ever seen in these forums. Because God freely chose to do something, His Sovereign ability to choose to do something else was compromised? So He was Sovereign as long as He didn’t choose anything and left everything an option. But as soon as He sovereignly declared His will He somehow forfeited His claim to sovereignty. I guess we can no longer trust in eternal security since you seem to believe God cannot be bound in the present by past edicts He has made.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
To say that God must be limited in His actions by any edict of the past is to limit what He can do at the presnt time.Welcome to a version of open theism (on top of the Pelagianism). If God is not limited by his edicts of the past, then the future is open, and God might in fact be a liar, since he said one thing and might in fact do another.
Jack, these ideas that you are arguing for have names, and those names represent beliefs, and those beliefs are not accepted by orthodox theology. I can accept that you might simply be untaught and not recognize these things. But many went round and round with you about the biblical teaching on original sin and you were given quite a bit of leeway on that. Now, you are suggesting that God is not limited by his own decree, which in fact means that the future is open. That is not a good thing.
[Jack Hampton]Actually, this definition of sovereignty has been accepted to my knowledge only twice in history. First, some of the more extreme members of the late medieval nominalists offered all sorts of crazy situations pitting the potentia Dei absoluta (absolute power of God) against the potentia Dei ordinata (ordained power of God), earning the wrath of Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists alike. Second, the open theism movement has, on the basis of a much different metaphysics, come to similar conclusions. I think it’s worth pointing out that open theism is not considered evangelical theology by most evangelicals, and that ETS almost succeeded in banning the open theists.
With the Lord Jesus the necessity to drink of the cup arose not from an irrevocable edict of the past but instead from the sovereign will of the Father. And even then the Father would have answered the prayer if redemption could be won at any price less terrible and costly.
To say that God must be limited in His actions by any edict of the past is to limit what He can do at the presnt time. Therefore the idea that He is limited in some way as to what He might or might not do is a denial of the sovereignty of God. The Lord Jesus certainly understood that but it seems as if the Calvinists do not even understand the doctrine which they claim to champion—the sovereignty of God.
So, is SI the place for open theists and (at least semi-)Pelagians who show no interest in altering their theology?
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I am under the impression that where Jack states…:
However, it appears to me that he is countering the rationalistic fatalism employed in the Augustinian/Calvinistic approach toward divine sovereignty and this is evidenced by one of his earlier statements:
But ultimately he uses the claims of those arguing against him, namely that divine sovereignty is to be measured by exercise and not position. Therefore he takes the claim of exercise and demonstrates that it indeed does have limits, even upon itself. Therefore I believe he is demonstrating the fruitlessness of the argument of endless and limitless exercise of divine sovereignty because it is not essential that of limitlessness in exercise but one of limitlessness in supremacy. I could be wrong about what I believe Jack is asserting but again, I doubt he is asserting, nor at this point do his words need to be interpreted that he is asserting, open theism.
I don’t care for OP topics too much but for the moment it appears much of the frustration people are having with Jack is with his doggedness and presenting issues and framing questions that many here are not prepared in their own theological development to field or because they have been taught to rely heavily on rationalism and not exegesis.
Now, if I am wrong on the matter of open theism and Jack does affirm it, then let me acknowledge those who were swift to address the concern, otherwise I believe my post is sound.
[Jack Hampton]…is not an argument regarding open theism nor does he have it in view nor is it necessary to believe or interpret that it is contained within the statement. I don’t know his position or intent for sure but I would be surprised that he would affirm open theism. He can answer to that.
With the Lord Jesus the necessity to drink of the cup arose not from an irrevocable edict of the past but instead from the sovereign will of the Father. And even then the Father would have answered the prayer if redemption could be won at any price less terrible and costly.
To say that God must be limited in His actions by any edict of the past is to limit what He can do at the presnt time. Therefore the idea that He is limited in some way as to what He might or might not do is a denial of the sovereignty of God. The Lord Jesus certainly understood that but it seems as if the Calvinists do not even understand the doctrine which they claim to champion—the sovereignty of God.
However, it appears to me that he is countering the rationalistic fatalism employed in the Augustinian/Calvinistic approach toward divine sovereignty and this is evidenced by one of his earlier statements:
[Jack Hampton] Chip, I believe that the following verse helps us understand the great mystery of divine sovereignty in relation to human will:Here he is making a comparison of contexts, one being the function of divine decree(s) (an exercise of divine sovereignty) and the other of human will. And again, he furthers the inquiry with the valid observation that:
“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23).
Those who were responsible for the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus were acting in fulfillment of a divine decree but yet there deeds were really and actually their own. Theirs were “wicked hands” and guilt points to the action of an independent will.
[Jack Hampton] As to your questions, it is a fact that the death of Christ was foreordained and that there were many prophecies which pointed to the Cross. However, the Lord Jesus Himself found nothing in the prophecies nor in the divine purpose to hinder His following prayer on the eve of the CrucifixionThis question is not invalid, it must be answered. And it need not be construed that to ask it is to propose open theism or appeal to some form of medieval nominalism which was not, in essence, theological but philosophical. Here, we have a theological question arising from a text, not from nominalism.
But ultimately he uses the claims of those arguing against him, namely that divine sovereignty is to be measured by exercise and not position. Therefore he takes the claim of exercise and demonstrates that it indeed does have limits, even upon itself. Therefore I believe he is demonstrating the fruitlessness of the argument of endless and limitless exercise of divine sovereignty because it is not essential that of limitlessness in exercise but one of limitlessness in supremacy. I could be wrong about what I believe Jack is asserting but again, I doubt he is asserting, nor at this point do his words need to be interpreted that he is asserting, open theism.
I don’t care for OP topics too much but for the moment it appears much of the frustration people are having with Jack is with his doggedness and presenting issues and framing questions that many here are not prepared in their own theological development to field or because they have been taught to rely heavily on rationalism and not exegesis.
Now, if I am wrong on the matter of open theism and Jack does affirm it, then let me acknowledge those who were swift to address the concern, otherwise I believe my post is sound.
[Jack Hampton]Jack, why do you feel the need to keep resorting to personal attacks? I apologized for missing something. I asked for another opportunity to satisfy your request. And this is how you respond. I guess this is yet another sterling example of your personal call for humility and unity in the Spirit. Please forgive me if I choose to find some example other than yourself to follow.[Chip Van Emmerik]Chip, if you cannot see what I was asking then there is no reason to post it again. if you chose to ignore it the first time there is nothing that convinces me that you will not ignore it again.[Jack Hampton] Chip, you demand an answer to your questions from me but when I ask you a question you just ignore it.Sorry, Jack. I thought I answered your questions. What did I miss?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jack Hampton][Chip Van Emmerik] You make your statement while conveniently leaving out any mention of the prayer of the Lord Jesus on the eve of the Crucifixion. I wonder why?It is an interesting event. I am not entirely clear how the hypostatic union functioned during the first advent. Are you? No motive for the prayer is revealed. What we do know is that God’s freely chosen decree made before the foundation of the world did not change. Not sure what that has to do with the sovereignty of God. He exercised His supreme, omniscient, omnipotent will. Sounds like sovereignty to me.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jack Hampton] “And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Mt.26:39).Once again you make unfounded assertions. How do you know what Jesus believed about the coming ordeal. We know He laid his life down voluntarily. There was no other way to fulfill previous prophecy (Divine promises) and provide redemption. I think you would do better to look for another reason for the prayer you reference than to continue to push for a God that either has relinquished control (open theism) or goes back on His word (lies).
Evidently He believed that it was possible that He did not have to drink of the cup or else He would not have made this request.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Alex Guggenheim] I don’t care for OP topics too much but for the moment it appears much of the frustration people are having with Jack is with his doggedness and presenting issues and framing questions that many here are not prepared in their own theological development to field or because they have been taught to rely heavily on rationalism and not exegesis.Not me. My problem continues to be primarily with the positions he takes, and secondarily with the evasive and sporadic randomness of his discussion and repeated resort to personal attacks.
[Alex Guggenheim] Now, if I am wrong on the matter…Glad to see you acknowledge you might possible be wrong about something.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Jack, as I stated previously, we do not fully understand the function of the hypostatic union. In this, Gill agrees. Here is Gill providing an understanding of the prayer of Jesus more clearly and eloquently than I could.
If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; meaning not only the hour, as it is called in Mark, the present season and time of distress, and horror; but all his future sufferings and death, which were at hand; together with the bearing the sins of his people, the enduring the curse of the law, and the wrath of God, all which were ingredients in, and made up this dreadful bitter cup, this cup of fury, cursing, and trembling; called a cup, either in allusion to the nauseous potions given by physicians to their patients; or rather to the cup of poison given to malefactors the sooner to dispatch them; or to that of wine mingled with myrrh and frankincense to intoxicate them, that they might not feel their pain; see Gill on Mark 15:23, or to the cup appointed by the master of the family to everyone in the house; these sorrows, sufferings, and death of Christ being what were allotted and appointed by his heavenly Father: and when he prays that this cup might pass from him, his meaning is, that he might be freed from the present horrors of his mind, be excused the sufferings of death, and be delivered from the curse of the law, and wrath of God; which request was made without sin, though it betrayed the weakness of the human nature under its insupportable load, and its reluctance to sufferings and death, which is natural; and yet does not represent him herein as inferior to martyrs, who have desired death, and triumphed in the midst of exquisite torments: for their case and his were widely different; they had the presence of God with them, Christ was under the hidings of his Father’s face; they had the love of God shed abroad in them, he had the wrath of God poured out upon him; and his prayer bespeaks him to be in a condition which neither they, nor any mortal creature were ever in. Moreover, the human nature of Christ was now, as it were, swallowed up in sorrow, and intent upon nothing but sufferings and death; had nothing in view but the wrath of God, and the curse of the law; so that everything else was, for the present, out of sight; as the purposes of God, his counsel and covenant, his own engagements and office, and the salvation of his people; hence it is no wonder to hear such a request made; and yet it is with this condition, “if it be possible”. In Mark it is said, “all things are possible unto thee”, Mark 14:36; intimating, that the taking away, or causing the cup to pass from him, was: all things are possible to God, which are consistent with the perfections of his nature, and the counsel of his will: and all such things, though possible in themselves, yet are not under such and such circumstances so; the removal of the cup from Christ was possible in itself, but not as things were circumstanced, and as matters then stood; and therefore it is hypothetically put, “if it be possible”, as it was not; and that by reason of the decrees and purposes of God, which had fixed it, and are immutable; and on account of the covenant of grace, of which this was a considerable branch and article, and in which Christ had agreed unto it, and is unalterable; and also on the score of the prophecies of the Old Testament, in which it had been often spoken of; and therefore without it, how should the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? they would not have been the Scriptures of truth. Besides, Christ had foretold it himself once and again, and therefore consistent with the truth of his own predictions, it could not be dispensed with: add to all this, that the salvation of his people required his drinking it; that could not be brought about no other way in agreement with the veracity, faithfulness, justice, and holiness of God. This condition qualities and restrains the above petition; nor is it to be considered but in connection with what follows:
nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt; which shows that the request was far from being sinful, or contrary to piety to God, or love to men, or to true fortitude of mind; the pure natural will of Christ, or the will of Christ’s human nature, being left to act in a mere natural way, shows a reluctancy to sorrows, sufferings, and death; this same will acting on rational principles, and in a rational way, puts it upon the possibility the thing, and the agreement of the divine will to it. That there are two wills in Christ, human and divine, is certain; his human will, though in some instances, as in this, may have been different from the divine will, yet not contrary to it; and his divine will is always the same with his Father’s. This, as mediator, he engaged to do, and came down from heaven for that purpose, took delight in doing it, and has completely finished it.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
You can say my car isn’t green, but when you affirm that it is colored in a synthesis of yellow and blue you are still saying it is green - just rejecting the title. When you declare that God is not presently bound by past decrees you espouse Open Theism, regardless of whether you intend this or accept the title.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Larry, why do you just ignore what the Lord Jesus prayed for on the eve of the Cross?I am not ignoring it. I suppose I am ignoring your comments on it because I am not going to enter that discussion with you. I don’t have time.
While I fully believe you do not intend to affirm openness of God, I do not think you have any other choice. Alex’s defense of you is not persuading in the least. Alex’s comments on “rationalistic fatalism” is off the mark so far as I have understood and believed the sovereignty of God, so that is not helpful. And your affirmation is not either. My guess is that perhaps you have not considered the implications of your statements. You are not reading Scripture in light of Scripture. You are picking and choosing a few verses while ignoring many others, and that is what led to your statement. Not to mention that you outright contradict a number of biblical passages that declare that God’s decrees are inviolable and no one can thwart them. So I would be cautious because here again you are dangerously close to the edge of the doctrinal statement and Christian orthodoxy.
If anyone thinks that God bears the ultimate responsibily for the murder of the Lord Jesus then why did the Son speak of these things as being their “hour and the power of darkness.”Jack,
God allowed the Crucifixion but He did not compel anyone to kill the lord Jesus.
Again, here is what I said earlier:
I believe that the following verse helps us understand the great mystery of divine sovereignty in relation to human will:
“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23).
Those who were responsible for the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus were acting in fulfillment of a divine decree but yet there deeds were really and actually their own. Theirs were “wicked hands” and guilt points to the action of an independent will.
Now that I have had to endure the misrepresenting of my beliefs by you perhaps you will at least answer my questions.
You’re confusing foreknowledge with causation. God knew that Jesus would be crucified, because He declared that at the foundation of the world (I Pet. 1:20):
13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, 1 and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.However, that doesn’t mean that God is responsible for the murder of Jesus. The Romans, Jewish rulers, and Pilate are all ultimately responsible for what they did, although they chose to act in a way that God used to bring about Salvation. Your allusion to Luke 22:53 makes that plain - that for that specific period of time, Satan was allowed control to do what he pleased (see Job 1-2), and he will carry the results of that forever.
Your argument seems to be that God is responsible for the death of Jesus if he knew ahead of time what would happen; that is heresy. Either God knows, or he does not, which is the point that Chip keeps making. You may not be explicitly claiming that God isn’t responsible for the crucifixion, but there’s really no other way to go when you reason through to the end of your position. In any case, Jesus certainly knew what was coming, because He told the disciples it was coming:
[Matthew 20:17-19] 17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18”See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”So I don’t think that I’m misrepresenting your beliefs.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
My understanding, The Nutshell Version-
God in His foreknowledge knows what is going to happen, but He has at the same time given us free will. How that works in conjunction and harmony without contradiction, I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. That’s attempting to define and quantify the mind of God- we can take a stab at it, but it ain’t happenin’.
Since I like to read about astrophysics and quantum mechanics, I tend to think of it this way- string theory posits the existence of extra dimensions- (think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders] Sliders ), with alternate universes/dimensions and timelines. But since God exists outside of time, He can set forth a specific plan, and yet see every possibility regardless of who does what.
So Adam wasn’t required to sin, and somehow, in some way, what God has ordained would have occurred, it just wouldn’t have been Adam’s sin that triggered it. We don’t negate God’s sovereignty with His endowing His creation with free will. I think it makes His sovereignty more spectacular and awe-inspiring, and at that point my brain starts leaking out my ears, so I quit.
John 6:5-6 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
It’s interesting to note how often God asks questions; we know He knows the answer- He is proving us. If we were but carbon-based robots, what would be the point of that?
BTW- when Jesus prays in the garden and asks for ‘the cup’ to pass, I don’t think He is talking about the crucifixion itself, but the cup of the wrath of God which requires God to forsake His Son. My opinion.
My understanding, The Nutshell Version-
God in His foreknowledge knows what is going to happen, but He has at the same time given us free will. How that works in conjunction and harmony without contradiction, I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. That’s attempting to define and quantify the mind of God- we can take a stab at it, but it ain’t happenin’.
Since I like to read about astrophysics and quantum mechanics, I tend to think of it this way- string theory posits the existence of extra dimensions- (think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders] Sliders ), with alternate universes/dimensions and timelines. But since God exists outside of time, He can set forth a specific plan, and yet see every possibility regardless of who does what.
So Adam wasn’t required to sin, and somehow, in some way, what God has ordained would have occurred, it just wouldn’t have been Adam’s sin that triggered it. We don’t negate God’s sovereignty with His endowing His creation with free will. I think it makes His sovereignty more spectacular and awe-inspiring, and at that point my brain starts leaking out my ears, so I quit.
John 6:5-6 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
It’s interesting to note how often God asks questions; we know He knows the answer- He is proving us. If we were but carbon-based robots, what would be the point of that?
BTW- when Jesus prays in the garden and asks for ‘the cup’ to pass, I don’t think He is talking about the crucifixion itself, but the cup of the wrath of God which requires God to forsake His Son. My opinion.
Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,I’m not going to be able to ‘explain’ anything, only give my interpretation and perspective- which is that God exists outside of time since He created time itself, and He lives in eternity, not in our sense of chronological time. If you want to call that the ‘ever present now’, that’s fine and IMO not inconsistent- but God did choose to describe His omniscience as “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23, Romans 8:29; 11:2, 1 Pet. 1:2).
Rev. 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
[Jack Hampton] Chip, earlier you said:I think Gill is mistaken. I do not believe Jesus was referring to his future suffering and death- the word ‘cup’ IMO gives us the hook on which to hang the question. (Ps. 75:8, Isa. 51:17, 22, Jer. 25:15, Rev. 14:10)[Chip Van Emmerik] No motive for the prayer is revealed.If you read what Gill said closely perhaps by now you have figured out the motive. Gill said: “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; meaning not only the hour, as it is called in Mark, the present season and time of distress, and horror; but all his future sufferings and death, which were at hand.”
According to Gil the Lord was praying to the Father that He would be spared His “future sufferings and death.”
Now that Gill has provided the motive for you let us look at the prayer again:
“And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Mt.26:39).
Evidently the Lord Jesus believed that it was possible that He did not have to drink of the cup or else He would not have made this request.
How do you explain that?
[Jack Hampton]I think God puts things in terms we humans can understand (such as Heb. 13:8), because we exist inside of chronological time which He created- so there obviously is such a thing. Thus His use of the word ‘foreknowledge’, even though He is omnipresent and inside and outside of every moment of time as we know it.[Susan R]Susan R, if God does not exist “in our sense of chronological time” then it is not obvious that there is no such thing as a chronological sequence of things? Therefore in His existence there is no yesterday nor is there a tomorrow. Is that not what Augustine was saying? Do you agree with what he said?Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,I’m not going to be able to ‘explain’ anything, only give my interpretation and perspective- which is that God exists outside of time since He created time itself, and He lives in eternity, not in our sense of chronological time.
Rev. 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
I am not arguing against the idea that God exists outside of time but only trying to understand the implications of that idea.
Thanks!
Susan R wrote: So Adam wasn’t required to sin, and somehow, in some way, what God has ordained would have occurred, it just wouldn’t have been Adam’s sin that triggered it. We don’t negate God’s sovereignty with His endowing His creation with free will. I think it makes His sovereignty more spectacular and awe-inspiring, and at that point my brain starts leaking out my ears, so I quit.Susan, what you are saying is that theoretically, despite God’s decree before the foundation of the world, that it is possible sin could have been avoided and the substitutional death of Christ could have been rendered unnecessary. I mean, if Adam could have not sinned, then why couldn’t every other person have not also avoided sin? If God is not free to do whatever He chooses to do because He is stymied by man’s free will, then you have absolutely negated His Divine Sovereignty.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jack Hampton]There are several ‘cups’ in Scripture, and IMO the cup Jesus was referring to was the cup of the wrath of God which required God to ‘forsake Him’ (Mtt. 27:46), not the cup of suffering and death which provided salvation. I think Jesus was committed to the cross and the salvation of mankind at all times (Heb. 12:2, 1 Pet. 2:23), but enduring separation from the Father was an entirely different matter.[Susan R] [I think Gill is mistaken. I do not believe Jesus was referring to his future suffering and death- the word ‘cup’ IMO gives us the hook on which to hang the question. (Ps. 75:8, Isa. 51:17, 22, Jer. 25:15, Rev. 14:10)Susan R,
I am not sure what the “cup” represented that you say the Lord Jesus asked to be passed from Him. Could you please go into more detail?
I think that He was referring to the same exact “cup” of which He spoke in symbolic terms about just a short time previously:
“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt.26:27-28).
I believe that the Lord Jesus was asking if He could be spared from drinking what was in the cup, the wine being a symbol of His blood and the blood symbolizing His suffering and death.
But I would certainly be interested in hearing a more detail explanation of your view.
[Jack Hampton] “And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Mt.26:39).I will repeat what I said previously, at least twice already. We do not understand exactly how the hypostatic union functioned. I think the best suggestion is that the human nature of Christ, sans omniscience, is on display here. This is the same pattern Christ gave in the Model Prayer - pray, laying your heart open before God, remaining constantly submissive to whatever the Father decrees.
Evidently the Lord Jesus believed that it was possible that He did not have to drink of the cup or else He would not have made this request.
How do you explain that?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]That is not what I am saying. I said what God had ordained before the foundation of the world would have still occurred, but Adam was not ‘required’ to rebel any more than Judas had to betray Jesus or Peter had to deny Christ. Satan tried to sift Peter- it’s possible that Peter could have chosen to betray Christ and then Judas would have denied him… or maybe Thomas. Someone has to screw up, but it didn’t have to be Adam, or Peter, or Judas, and it doesn’t have to be me, or you. (Mtt. 18:7, Lk. 17:1)Susan R wrote: So Adam wasn’t required to sin, and somehow, in some way, what God has ordained would have occurred, it just wouldn’t have been Adam’s sin that triggered it. We don’t negate God’s sovereignty with His endowing His creation with free will. I think it makes His sovereignty more spectacular and awe-inspiring, and at that point my brain starts leaking out my ears, so I quit.Susan, what you are saying is that theoretically, despite God’s decree before the foundation of the world, that it is possible sin could have been avoided and the substitutional death of Christ could have been rendered unnecessary. I mean, if Adam could have not sinned, then why couldn’t every other person have not also avoided sin? If God is not free to do whatever He chooses to do because He is stymied by man’s free will, then you have absolutely negated His Divine Sovereignty.
God certainly is not stymied by man’s free will, but just because we don’t understand how His sovereignty works while still allowing men to choose doesn’t negate that throughout Scripture, angels and men are given choices and suffer the consequences of their choices.
[Jack Hampton]That’s taking what I said and jumping off the theological cliff with it- of course it is part of His suffering, but I think the use of the word ‘cup’ is important when trying to ascertain exactly what Jesus was asking to be relieved of. He wasn’t, IMO, asking to if He could get out of being sacrificed as the spotless Lamb of God, but if ‘the cup’ could be avoided- so what was ‘the cup’ He was referring to? Again, IMO, it was the cup of the wrath of God.[Susan R] There are several ‘cups’ in Scripture, and IMO the cup Jesus was referring to was the cup of the wrath of God which required God to ‘forsake Him’ (Mtt. 27:46), not the cup of suffering and death which provided salvation. I think Jesus was committed to the cross and the salvation of mankind at all times (Heb. 12:2, 1 Pet. 2:23), but enduring separation from the Father was an entirely different matter.Susan, from what you said I can only understand that you do not think that the Lord Jesus being forsaken by the Father had anything to do with the Lord Jesus’ “suffering” on the Cross.
And does not the separation from the Father which He experienced upon the Cross also in regard to a “death”?
But this thread is about “Why did Adam sin?”, so let’s follow this particular bunny trail on another thread.
Jack,
You keep asking this question, and Paul already dealt with it in Romans 5. It’s not as complex as you want to make it. God wrote, through the pen of Paul, what exactly happened:
You keep asking this question, and Paul already dealt with it in Romans 5. It’s not as complex as you want to make it. God wrote, through the pen of Paul, what exactly happened:
[Romans 5:12-21, ESV] Death in Adam, Life in ChristThis isn’t a Calvinism thing. This is a SCRIPTURE thing, and your the continued objections to “calvinism” are irrelevant because they sidestep the point that I’ve made since the beginning - you do not agree with Romans 5. That’s a serious problem.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned —
13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
So verses 18 and 19…:
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.…don’t provide any commentary to verse 12 and if not how are they explained in light of the assertion that it is not by Adam’s sin but each individual’s sin one is condemned? Clearly they assert otherwise.
19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
As far as the biblical account goes, Adam and Adam only are blamed for sin. Nowhere is God to blame either explicitly or secretly. It is very dangerous to imply he had a hand in Adam’s guilt. Calvinism is logical, but even RC Sproul, John Gerstner, and John Piper understand where the logic of calvinism goes and warn against it. We need to stick to what the scriptures actually say.
Jack, your interpretation of Rom 5 is lacking. The phrase “but sin is not charged to one’s account when there is no law” just proves that even prior to the law, men were still held accountable for their sin nature, given to them by Adam. Even if they weren’t violating the mosaic law (because it was not yet given), they were still sinners against God’s holiness. This captures the force of v18 and 19 which demonstrate guilt in Adam.
Further, Jesus did not pray to have the cup removed because of a last second change of heart. Did you ever consider that his prayer was to show us that no other option existed? It was to prove he had to take the cup of God’s wrath (Is 53). He asked the Father if it was possible. The answer came back definitively no.
Jesus said the following with regards to the possibility of a different scenario. Are these verses relevant to the issue?
Matt 11:21-24
21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes long ago! 22 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today. 24 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
Jack, your interpretation of Rom 5 is lacking. The phrase “but sin is not charged to one’s account when there is no law” just proves that even prior to the law, men were still held accountable for their sin nature, given to them by Adam. Even if they weren’t violating the mosaic law (because it was not yet given), they were still sinners against God’s holiness. This captures the force of v18 and 19 which demonstrate guilt in Adam.
Further, Jesus did not pray to have the cup removed because of a last second change of heart. Did you ever consider that his prayer was to show us that no other option existed? It was to prove he had to take the cup of God’s wrath (Is 53). He asked the Father if it was possible. The answer came back definitively no.
Jesus said the following with regards to the possibility of a different scenario. Are these verses relevant to the issue?
Matt 11:21-24
21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes long ago! 22 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today. 24 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Jack Hampton]Jack, that’s a perfect illustration of your sidestepping. You choose to affirm the last half of that verse, but didn’t even acknowledge the first part of it. So again I ask you, what does the first part of this verse mean? You keep acting as though the verse starts with the phrase you like.[Jay C.] This isn’t a Calvinism thing. This is a SCRIPTURE thing, and your the continued objections to “calvinism” are irrelevant because they sidestep the point that I’ve made since the beginning - you do not agree with Romans 5. That’s a serious problem.Jay, I do agree with Romans 5. I just don’t agree with your distorted interpretation of those verses. From what I read Paul says that “death came to all men, because all sinned”:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned” (Ro.5:12).
When Paul writes:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin…what does he mean?
James - nice job discussing the ‘cup’ section of that passage that Jack brought up. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Susan R]Susan, this is one of the leakiest definitions of sovereignty I have ever seen. What you have said is that God, in His sovereignty, ordained the events that would take place, but that He is not sure who will act out each event. Several problems arise.[Chip Van Emmerik]That is not what I am saying. I said what God had ordained before the foundation of the world would have still occurred, but Adam was not ‘required’ to rebel any more than Judas had to betray Jesus or Peter had to deny Christ. Satan tried to sift Peter- it’s possible that Peter could have chosen to betray Christ and then Judas would have denied him… or maybe Thomas. Someone has to screw up, but it didn’t have to be Adam, or Peter, or Judas, and it doesn’t have to be me, or you. (Mtt. 18:7, Lk. 17:1)Susan R wrote: So Adam wasn’t required to sin, and somehow, in some way, what God has ordained would have occurred, it just wouldn’t have been Adam’s sin that triggered it. We don’t negate God’s sovereignty with His endowing His creation with free will. I think it makes His sovereignty more spectacular and awe-inspiring, and at that point my brain starts leaking out my ears, so I quit.Susan, what you are saying is that theoretically, despite God’s decree before the foundation of the world, that it is possible sin could have been avoided and the substitutional death of Christ could have been rendered unnecessary. I mean, if Adam could have not sinned, then why couldn’t every other person have not also avoided sin? If God is not free to do whatever He chooses to do because He is stymied by man’s free will, then you have absolutely negated His Divine Sovereignty.
God certainly is not stymied by man’s free will, but just because we don’t understand how His sovereignty works while still allowing men to choose doesn’t negate that throughout Scripture, angels and men are given choices and suffer the consequences of their choices.
First, as I said before, this means that the events are not ensured of happening. Unless you are saying God only ordained the events that He saw looking into the future would take place. This is the classic Arminian understanding of foreknowledge. Unfortunately, it not only strips God of His sovereignty because He is left reacting to the true sovereigns, human beings, but it also defies multitudes of Scripture. There is no way to be certain God’s decree will come to fruition. If each person is solely acting according to his own will, at least one possible permutation has that everyone will choose to act correctly. It has to be a viable possibility in your system because you say God does not decree any one person’s involvement in His plans.
Second, this is essentially Open Theism. If God is not ordaining the details, then He is not in charge. You cannot say He is in charge somehow by not being in charge. Your system has God sitting on the sidelines waiting to see which possibility will play itself out, apparently confidently waiting (hoping) for someone to eventually fulfill His decree.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip, I can’t keep reiterating this. I don’t have a ‘system’, by the way, but I have some inclinations, interpretations, and beliefs. I don’t believe that God is sitting around wondering what is going to happen. He knows what is going to happen- but I believe it is ordained by God’s omniscience, not by decree, or else God would be deceitful to allow Scripture to make claims that we do have a choice while at the same time not allowing a choice.
I said before that any time we try to reduce God to a body on a slab, as if we can really dissect His character and look at Him under a microscope, we are in serious trouble. We can’t possibly know for sure how God can do both- ordain the future, know what is going to happen, and yet give man free will- any more than we can understand how Jesus Christ can be getting baptized while the Holy Ghost descends upon Him and God is in heaven declaring His approval. There aren’t enough blueberry bagels in the world to help me figure that one out, but I know it’s true somehow. And of course our interpretations have problems- I don’t expect them not to, because we are talking about bringing into our minute and often faulty understanding the eternally magnificent mind of God. Good luck with that.
I said before that any time we try to reduce God to a body on a slab, as if we can really dissect His character and look at Him under a microscope, we are in serious trouble. We can’t possibly know for sure how God can do both- ordain the future, know what is going to happen, and yet give man free will- any more than we can understand how Jesus Christ can be getting baptized while the Holy Ghost descends upon Him and God is in heaven declaring His approval. There aren’t enough blueberry bagels in the world to help me figure that one out, but I know it’s true somehow. And of course our interpretations have problems- I don’t expect them not to, because we are talking about bringing into our minute and often faulty understanding the eternally magnificent mind of God. Good luck with that.
Susan, whether we recognize it consciously or not, everyone has a philosophy (a system) that provides a gridwork for values and decision-making in life.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Susan, whether we recognize it consciously or not, everyone has a philosophy (a system) that provides a gridwork for values and decision-making in life.Of course- but my comment was about this specific discussion. I don’t have a ‘system’ that interprets the details of God’s omniscience. I know what I believe to be consistent with passages of Scripture that indicate that humans were given a free will without negating God’s foreknowledge.
My point was that even though you may not have thought through all the details, you have a system for this topic as well. I am just challenging some of the points of your system.
It seems a lot of people have leaky definitions of sovereignty for fear of trampling free will. I appreciate Spurgeon’s take that from our perspective, God’s sovereignty and man’s free will appear to be the two rails of a railroad track. In our view, the two can never converge. I do not pretend to fully comprehend how these two seemingly opposing concepts can converge, but I am committed to not weakening either of them in an effort to make them understandable.
I agree with your assertions about man’s free will and resultant responsibility. I contend, though, that you are weakening God’s sovereignty in the points you have made in an effort to balance these two concepts. I have no problem making seemingly opposing statements regarding the two, because that’s what Scripture does. God is sovereign, by definition in complete control, Scripturally decreeing the events of human history. Man chooses his way in life, completely responsible for the consequences of his choices (at least Adam and Eve did). God’s sovereignty does not abrogate man’s choice and responsibility; God never forces man to a choice against man’s will. Equally, man’s freedom cannot infringe on God’s complete, Divine sovereignty.
It seems a lot of people have leaky definitions of sovereignty for fear of trampling free will. I appreciate Spurgeon’s take that from our perspective, God’s sovereignty and man’s free will appear to be the two rails of a railroad track. In our view, the two can never converge. I do not pretend to fully comprehend how these two seemingly opposing concepts can converge, but I am committed to not weakening either of them in an effort to make them understandable.
I agree with your assertions about man’s free will and resultant responsibility. I contend, though, that you are weakening God’s sovereignty in the points you have made in an effort to balance these two concepts. I have no problem making seemingly opposing statements regarding the two, because that’s what Scripture does. God is sovereign, by definition in complete control, Scripturally decreeing the events of human history. Man chooses his way in life, completely responsible for the consequences of his choices (at least Adam and Eve did). God’s sovereignty does not abrogate man’s choice and responsibility; God never forces man to a choice against man’s will. Equally, man’s freedom cannot infringe on God’s complete, Divine sovereignty.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
We agree alot more than we disagree. On what points (although I think a better term would be ‘speculations’) do you believe I am in error?
Discussion