by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible
Does God have the freedom to create sin?
"with evil, god cannot be tried" I forgot the scripture.
Hey I'm not going to argue the bible because I do not feel it's from god....however as far as looking at things from a biblical perspective, insistance on particular dogma isn't in gods agenda in the NT other than having faith in his son.....so why debate so strongly?
Gumby
Gumby
I don't think anyone will be burned at the stake But, I wish more people cared about things like faith, God, church history, bible history and the like. Apathy and ignorance are how people get sucked into cults, in the first place.
This type of friendly dialog helps me to express my faith to others. It also causes me to look at my faith in a new way (from a different perspective). LT, EW and myself have enjoyed this and found it a blessing and helpful. I thank God for our differances.
D Dog
PS speaking of that pseudo-Calvinist where is LT
This type of friendly dialog helps me to express my faith to others. It also causes me to look at my faith in a new way (from a different perspective). LT, EW and myself have enjoyed this and found it a blessing and helpful
This is also one of the reasons I like to spend time on this site. Where else can you talk to a people who has came from where you have and are also on an exit journey and talk about what you feel and think? We can also help the little dubbie lurkers see their way out.
Gumby
PS speaking of that pseudo-Calvinist where is LT
LOL at DDog.
Sorry about my absence, all. I've been away at a weekend of communion services in a local village. I have a life outside the board, thank God.
I would caution you to take the admonishion of Peter (2Pet.3:15-17) in regards of how scripture is used to make tenuous points.
Gumby:
Thanks for holding the fort. You've restated a few of my points, eg.:
The text you were looking for was James 1:13, and I personally believe it has a direct bearing on the current topic.
Jam 1:13-17 KJV "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
DDog:
Pseudo-Calvinist?
That's kinda insulting.
Do you want to point out where I've strayed from Calvinist doctrine in my ramblings on this thread?
The reality of the matter is that you state things that even Hyper-Calvinists would not (i.e. the claim that God is the Author of sin).
If you like I'll quote Calvin on this very point (heretofore I've avoided quoting anything other than the confession, but if it will suffice you, here goes):
Calvin's Institutes Book 2 Chapter 1 paragraph 10, headed:
10. From the exposition of both parts of the definition it follows that God is not the author of sin, the whole human race being corrupted by an inherent viciousness.
10. Let us have done, then, with those who dare to inscribe the name of God on their vices, because we say that men are born vicious. The divine workmanship, which they ought to look for in the nature of Adam, when still entire and uncorrupted, they absurdly expect to find in their depravity. The blame of our ruin rests with our own carnality, not with God, its only cause being our degeneracy from our original condition. And let no one here glamour that God might have provided better for our safety by preventing Adam?s fall. This objection, which, from the daring presumption implied in it, is odious to every pious mind, relates to the mystery of predestination, which will afterwards be considered in its own place (Tertull. de Prescript., Calvin, Lib. de Predest). Meanwhile let us remember that our ruin is attributable to our own depravity, that we may not insinuate a charge against God himself, the Author of nature. It is true that nature has received a mortal wound, but there is a great difference between a wound inflicted from without, and one inherent in our first condition. It is plain that this wound was inflicted by sin; and, therefore, we have no ground of complaint except against ourselves. This is carefully taught in Scripture. For the Preacher says, ?Lo, this only have I found, that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions? (Ecc.7:29). Since man, by the kindness of God, was made upright, but by his oven infatuation fell away unto vanity, his destruction is obviously attributable only to himself (Athanas. in Orat. Cont. Idola.).
Does God have the freedom to create sin?
No. Nor does he have the freedom to lie.
If you are going for the absolute freedom of God you might as well go the whole hog and ask: Does God have the freedom to sin?
How do you so answer?
John 1:3
So did God make Adam sin?
Apparently so, if you read that text as God making everything, but how can it be that God made light and yet "the Word" IS light? Was "the Word" made of God? I think you're making trouble for yourself by running fast and loose with these kind of texts.
A further problem with a black and white literalist viewpoint is that you end up with a legalistic and mechanistic God who has an arbitary definition of the word "grace".
EW:
I apologise for the delay, but I've finally been able to look at Isa.45:7. I've honestly not had the time to devote to it previously. After forming an opinion on the text I hooked out a few commentaries, and it turns out they concur with my opinion, and elaborate on the meaning Cyrus would have taken from it. I'll highlight my opinions, as found.
Starting with John Gill - esteemed hyper-calvinist, and predecessor to Spurgeon's pulpit:
Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness,.... Natural light, or that light which was produced at the first creation, and of which the sun is the fountain and source; or day which is light, and night which is darkness, the constant revolutions of which were formed, appointed, and are continued by the Lord, Gen.1:3, moral light, or the light of nature, the rational understanding in man; spiritual light, or the light of grace, by which things spiritual and supernatural are known; the light of joy and comfort from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and the light of eternal glory and happiness: this is all from God, of his producing and giving; and so darkness is his creature; that natural darkness which was upon the face of the earth at the beginning; what arises from the absence of the sun, or is occasioned by the eclipses of it, or very black clouds; or any extraordinary darkness, such as was in Egypt; or deprivation of sight, blindness in men; and, in a figurative sense, ignorance and darkness that follow upon sin; judicial blindness, God gives men up and leaves them to; temporal afflictions and distresses, and everlasting punishment, which is blackness of darkness: I make peace, and create evil; peace between God and men is made by Christ, who is God over all; spiritual peace of conscience comes from God, through Christ, by the Spirit; eternal glory and happiness is of God, which saints enter into at death; peace among the saints themselves here, and with the men of the world; peace in churches, and in the world, God is the author of, even of all prosperity of every kind, which this word includes: "evil" is also from him; not the evil of sin; this is not to be found among the creatures God made; this is of men, though suffered by the Lord, and overruled by him for good: but the evil of punishment for sin, God's sore judgments, famine, pestilence, evil beasts, and the sword, or war, which latter may more especially be intended, as it is opposed to peace; this usually is the effect of sin; may be sometimes lawfully engaged in; whether on a good or bad foundation is permitted by God; moreover, all afflictions, adversities, and calamities, come under this name, and are of God; see Job.2:10, I the Lord do all these things; and therefore must be the true God, and the one and only one. Kimchi, from Saadiah Gaon, observes, that this is said against those that assert two gods, the one good, and the other evil; whereas the Lord is the Maker of good and evil, and therefore must be above all; and it is worthy of observation, that the Persian Magi, before Zoroastres (m), held two first causes, the one light, or the good god, the author of all good; and the other darkness, or the evil god, the author of all evil; the one they called Oromazes, the other Arimanius; and, as Dr. Prideaux (n) observes, "these words are directed to Cyrus king of Persia, and must be understood as spoken in reference to the Persian sect of the Magians; who then held light and darkness, or good and evil, to be the supreme Beings, without acknowledging the great God as superior to both;'' and which these words show; for Zoroastres, who reformed them in this first principle of their religion, was after Isaiah's time.
Also Adam Clarke further elaborates:
Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness - It was the great principle of the Magian religion, which prevailed in Persia in the time of Cyrus, and in which probably he was educated, that there are two supreme, co-eternal, and independent causes always acting in opposition one to the other; one the author of all good, the other of all evil. The good being they called Light; the evil being, Darkness. That when Light had the ascendant, then good and happtness prevailed among men; when Darkness had the superiority, then eviI and misery abounded. An opinion that contradicts the clearest evidence of our reason, which plainly leads us to the acknowledgment of one only Supreme Being, infinitely good as well as powerful. With reference to this absurd opinion, held by the person to whom this prophecy is addressed, God, by his prophet, in the most significant terms, asserts his omnipotence and absolute supremacy: -
?I am Jehovah, and none else;
Forming light, and creating darkness,
Making peace, and creating evil:
I Jehovah am the author of all these things.?
Declaring that those powers whom the Persians held to be the original authors of good and evil to mankind, representing them by light and darkness, as their proper emblems, are no other than creatures of God, the instruments which he employs in his government of the world, ordained or permitted by him in order to execute his wise and just decrees; and that there is no power, either of good or evil, independent of the one supreme God, infinite in power and in goodness.
There were, however, some among the Persians whose sentiments were more moderate as to this matter; who held the evil principle to be in some measure subordinate to the good; and that the former would at length be wholly subdued by the latter. See Hyde, De Relig. Vet. Pers. cap. xxii.That this opinion prevailed among the Persians as early as the time of Cyrus we may, I think, infer not only from this passage of Isaiah, which has a manifest reference to it, but likewise from a passage in Xenophon?s Cyropaedia, where the same doctrine is applied to the human mind. Araspes, a noble young Persian, had fallen in love with the fair captive Panthea, committed to his charge by Cyrus. After all his boasting that he was superior to the assaults of that passion, he yielded so far to it as even to threaten violence if she would not comply with his desires. Awed by the reproof of Cyrus, fearing his displeasure, and having by cool reflection recovered his reason; in his discourse with him on this subject he says: ?O Cyrus, I have certainly two souls; alld this piece of philosophy I have learned from that wicked sophist, Love. For if I had but one soul, it would not be at the same time good and evil, it would not at the same time approve of honorable and base actions; and at once desire to do, and refuse to do, the very same things. But it is plain that I am animated by two souls, and when the good soul prevails, I do what is virtuous; and when the evil one prevails, I attempt what is vicious. But now the good soul prevails, having gotten you for her assistant, and has clearly gained the superiority.? Lib. 6 p. 424.
I make peace, and create evil - Evil is here evidently put for war and its attendant miseries. I will procure peace for the Israelites, and destroy Babylon by war. I form light, and create darkness. Now, as darkness is only the privation of light, so the evil of war is the privation of peace.
LT
Pseudo-Calvinist?
That's kinda insulting.
Wow! So you do want to burn me at the stake? I guess you really walk lock step with Calvin on everything. Well, put your torch away (for now) I was just kidding about how even though we seem to strongly disagree, we mean no harm to each other unlike some of the reformers. Forgive my sick humor, I didn't mean to insult you. I keep forgetting that you can't see how firmly my tongue was planted in my cheek.
Does God have the freedom to create sin?No. Nor does he have the freedom to lie.
If you are going for the absolute freedom of God you might as well go the whole hog and ask: Does God have the freedom to sin?
How do you so answer?
God has the freedom to do things that would be sin, if man were to do them. God has the freedom to kill men at his discretion, is this murder? God has the freedom to take what ever he wants, is this theft? God has the freedom to send (strong) delusions, is this lying? God has the freedom to be jealous or covet, is this sin? The answer is no, because He is God. He determines what righteousness is. He also determines what sin and evil are. Man or Satan determine nothing of the kind. The freedom to create sin is not the same as committing it.
So did God make Adam sin?
Apparently so, if you read that text as God making everything, but how can it be that God made light and yet "the Word" IS light? Was "the Word" made of God? I think you're making trouble for yourself by running fast and loose with these kind of texts.
The problem here is you ask the question as if Adam's will was violated. We know Adam ate willingly and enjoyed it for a season. You must admit this was in God's plan.
A further problem with a black and white literalist viewpoint is that you end up with a legalistic and mechanistic God who has an arbitary definition of the word "grace".
Don't cloud the issue with this "black and white literalist viewpoint" crap. We both know what symbolism is and what figures of speech are. "without him was not any thing made that was made." If you want to say sin and evil were not made, say it. But, you will have problems if you say Satan created them. D Dog
After forming an opinion on the text I hooked out a few commentaries, and it turns out they concur with my opinion, and elaborate on the meaning Cyrus would have taken from it. I'll highlight my opinions, as found.
LT, what are your opinions? What is your understanding of "I create evil", not theirs!
DDog:
Pseudo-Calvinist?
That's kinda insulting.
Darn, I forgot the smileys
There aint no burning faggots here, just grins and camaderie
God has the freedom to do things that would be sin, if man were to do them.
That wouldn't be possible. By your definition of sin, how is He able to break His own commands?
Didn't Christ's "passive obediance" show that it is impossible?
The problem here is you ask the question as if Adam's will was violated. We know Adam ate willingly and enjoyed it for a season. You must admit this was in God's plan.
I agree that it was in the plan. What I essentially disagree with is that God invisibly moved Adam's hand or rational mind, to make it actively inevitable. He permitted it. Why do you have difficulty with that?
If you want to say sin and evil were not made, say it. But, you will have problems if you say Satan created them.
God didn't create sin. I've said it many times, but you don't appear to want to hear it.
In the context of the scriptures we've been discussing:
I suspect it didn't need to be created, per se. It occured once that which was good and pure and perfect was corrupted.
Nonetheless I will not have it that God was the author of that.
EW:
LT, what are your opinions? What is your understanding of "I create evil", not theirs!
You already know my opinions. I've expressed them time and again. I also highlighted my points from their words. It's really not that difficult to string together:
The words are directed to Cyrus and are in language he would understand. An argument is being made to establish the sovereignty of God. His power is exemplified in His ability to create and mold events, for which examples are given of night and day, war and peace (and the results thereof).
What's your understanding of it?
What's your understanding of it?
Do you want my understanding or a paraphasing of other comentaries
I believe Isaiah says God created everything. And that Isaiah is specific, "creates evil" creates darkness.
Its apparent Isa. 45:7 is problematic for you.
You already know my opinions. I've expressed them time and again.
Im speaking of Isa. 45:7 I thought we were on the same page?
EW:I apologise for the delay, but I've finally been able to look at Isa.45:7.
What are your conclusions after comparing words used in Gen. and Isa. in relation to "create'?
