Read the entire article here and I promise you it is worth the 15 minutes!!!! I have been around the blogsphere and this seems to be a pressing issue especially with young men and women who have begun to become convicted of such a theological position. As believers (rather Calvinistic, Arminian, or some mixture of the two which the majority of Evangelicals fall) we are to have charity with one another, we aren’t to deliver low blows, be unkind, ungentle, impatient, and never unloving towards those we disagree with. This was a hill I once died on until I matured a great deal in this area. I still have much to mature in, so this isn’t just for Calvinist vs. Armians but for all Christians who disagree with other Christians.
Here are a few excerpts to chew on:
1. All of us, at one time or another, were Arminian in our thinking. A professing Arminian may be just as unregenerate as a professing Calvinist, but one’s adherence to Arminian theology does not necessarily exclude them from the kingdom of God. It is disturbing to hear some Calvinists assign all Arminians to the lowest abyss while conveniently forgetting that they too, at one time, were Arminians. Although the great 18th century evangelist, George Whitefield, had his differences with the staunch Arminian John Wesley, he was able to see the hand of God in Wesley’s ministry and count him as a brother in Christ. Thus, we must be patient with our brethren and recognize that both ethical and theological maturity takes time. In fact, there are some truths that, for whatever reason, we may not yet be ready to receive – as Jesus told His own disciples, “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” (John 16:12).
1. Scripture alone is the final standard of authority for doctrine and practice (Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21), not Luther, Calvin, Owen, or any other great Reformed theologian. This is not to deny that these men – and men from other theological traditions – have made great spiritual contributions to the church, but only that they are not the final arbiters of truth. I know that many Reformed people would assent to this, but how many truly practice it? If we accept everything under the banner of “Reformed” or “Calvinistic,” without serious scriptural investigation, are we truly practicing “Sola Scriptura”? Let us not make a pope out of Calvin, Luther, or any other mere mortal (Jeremiah 17:5).
1. Consider the grace and blessings which God has lavished upon you: He could have chosen to create you into a mouse or even a cockroach but, instead, chose to make you into a member of the human race; He could have chosen to plant you in the most remote and harshest place on this planet but, instead, chose to plant you in the free and prosperous land of America; He could have left you in sin and darkness but, instead, chose to redeem you and adopt you as His child through Christ Jesus; And He could have left you in your Arminian confusion but, instead, chose to graciously reveal the Doctrines of Grace to you. Therefore, do you have any excuse for pride or arrogance toward others – particularly toward our Arminian brethren? As the apostle Paul says, “For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7).
4. In many cases, those who are in constant friction with others over relatively minor theological issues, do so because: (1) They are spiritually immature; (2) Lack discernment in recognizing what is essential or non-essential; and (3) They engage in unimportant disputes because they’re not truly engaged in genuine spiritual warfare. It’s akin to soldiers, during peace-time, who concentrate on the relatively petty details of shining shoes or making certain that their uniforms are always starched because there’s no real war to fight. Thus, they spend much of their time concentrating on insignificant duties. Actually, the Christian who pursues “fruitless discussions” (1 Timothy 1:3-7) stands under the disciplining hand of God since, unlike the soldier who serves during peace-time, our war is not over, but continues to rage on until Christ returns (2 Corinthians 10:3-4; Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Peter 5:8-9).
That cartoon is extremely funny… to a calvinist
“This was a hill I once died on until I matured a great deal in this area.”
Amen. And I did likewise, and am still dying to the flesh.
Hey bro,
This is a good word…. I think I’ll add that article to my links on TII.
thanks for posting
Jude 2,
Q
“1. All of us, at one time or another, were Arminian in our thinking.”
I can honestly say that’s not true for me, and I know many people that it also isn’t true for.
“It is disturbing to hear some Calvinists assign all Arminians to the lowest abyss while conveniently forgetting that they too, at one time, were Arminians.”
First of all, to say that “some calvinists” assign arminians to hell is one of the most misrepresentations of calvinism I think I’ve ever seen. Not “some,” but “very few.” Second of all, it’s misrepresenting because it fails to mention the “few” arminians that do the same thing with calvinists. Let’s face it, anyone who has been a Christian longer than a minute knows people from every denomination and creed who’s a snob. It’s not just limited to people of one doctrine, and to insinuate so is just plain naive!
This guy makes a lot of points and uses a lot of scripture I don’t think too many people would ever disagree with, which is why I find it wrong and deceptive for him to make it seem like to his readers that there are a lot of calvinists who disagree with the things he writes. As far as I’m concerned, he’s just preaching to the choir. He can sit down now.
The article was good. I think about things like this when I read text of scripture as such:
If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (Philippians 2:1-5 KJV)
I see nothing in there declaring you must be reformed or arminian etc. What happened to just loving the brethren, and working towards edification. I have seen brothers argue down “their view” instead of holding the Word of God as the standard. Just some thoughts. Good post
Karsten Miller
Stephen,
1.You and those people you know are the only ones I ever heard of, who came into the faith not knowing anything about the Doctrines of Grace. I guess there are exceptions for everything but sorry I know plenty of Christians as a matter of fact a good deal, and most of them would affirm this.
2. Stephen, if I have 7 people and 2 of them say something is that some or few? I think you are waring with semantics but I will digress. Secondly this isn’t about Arminians it is an article to Calvinist.
3. This article isn’t about snobs but a spirit within the Calvinistic camp. You missed me with this statement “Let’s face it, anyone who has been a Christian longer than a minute knows people from every denomination and creed who’s a snob. It’s not just limited to people of one doctrine, and to insinuate so is just plain naive!”
4. There are a lot of Calvinist who also need to hear this. I did about 5 or so years ago and this article would have been a clear rebuke of my attitude. So again another miss.
5. We thank you for your concern.
Penn,
Thanks for visiting. How did you find the site if I might ask?
Q,
It is funny that this can be not only for Calvinist but for all who have a theological distinctive that they are passionate about. Charity seems to always be the answer, disputing and schisms are sinful and as the author said “from below not above”.
KM,
Brother you always got a good word to say my man. I think as I mature the things that would cause me to walk away from other believers has actually become smaller and smaller. Why? Because if Christ redeemed them I am to love them, regardless if we disagree or not. As the author said “each distinstive has some grasp of truth that the others don’t”. I think what happens is those distinctives become wedges between the brethren and this is what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians chapter 1. As believers are focus is Christ and Him crucified and raised from the dead. But again you are right my brother. Much love.
“I guess there are exceptions for everything but sorry I know plenty of Christians as a matter of fact a good deal, and most of them would affirm this.”
If they affirm that all Christians are Arminians first like this guy does then they are wrong just like he is.
“2. Stephen, if I have 7 people and 2 of them say something is that some or few?”
This is the weirdest statement you’ve ever made. Are you saying you only know 7 calvinists and 2 of them act this way? Are you saying you were once in a group of 7 calvinists and 2 of them acted this way. Are you saying 2 out of every 7 calvinists you know act this way? Please clarify. Should I pick a random group of 7 black people and judge all black people that way and write articles about the problems I see in their “camp?” The assumption is absurd!
“Secondly this isn’t about Arminians it is an article to Calvinist.”
This was actually my point. It was clearly biased. I could have written the same article about arminians or dispensationalists. It could have been a message to all Christians, but he directed it at Calvinists which made it lose its appeal to a lot of readers. By doing so I think he became part of the problem he’s addressing.
“This article isn’t about snobs but a spirit within the Calvinistic camp.” I don’t have a problem admitting this is indeed a spirit within the calvinist camp. Why do you have a problem admitting that there are other camps with the same problem? Trust me, it’s not just a calvinist problem. And to think it is just a calvinist problem is the height of ignorance.
Stephen,
Do you read anything before you type. Look at the title.
I’m not talking about your title. I’m talking about his. “Practical wisdom for calvinists.”
Bro. Stephen,
I would like to confess to you that I am one who is/was definitely guilty of the uncharitableness written about in this article. Upon learning of the Doctrines of Grace, not only was I arrogant, prideful and down right mean to those who disagreed but I was also unforgiving toward those who had engrained Arminianism into my head.
For me it took the chastisement of the Spirit of God, the encouraging of brothers like Lionel and an article by Al Mohler called “Theological Triage”, to get me out of that mode.
Perhaps you should look at the article as a good admonishment for those to whom it applies and nothing more. To react angrily as you seem to have, only gives more evidence to the point that is being made in the article. As I look at your responses I see a lack of charitableness.
You know the old saying, “If you throw a rock in a crowd, the only one that hollers is the one who gets hit.”.
I know this will probably not be a well-received comment in such a discussion, but I’ll say it anyway….
The simple act of placing onself in a special “camp” whether it be calvinist, arminian, reformed, Dispensationalist, CT, NCT, Paedo or Credo Baptist, Egalitarian or Complementarian or antidisestablishmentantarian, is itself, a sign of spiritual immaturity. I agree with much of what you said, and what you quoted, but it doesn’t go far enough to say that would should be gracious towards those in the other camps. The fact is that there shouldn’t be these stupid camps to begin with.
This is a great line: “Let us not make a pope out of Calvin, Luther, or any other mere mortal”. However, to turn around and call oneself a “Calvinist”, is to certainly elevate John Calvin up to some level above the rest of the body. If I read and am edified by books written by C.S. Lewis, or Francis Schaeffer, does that mean I should then identify myself as a Lewisite? Or a Schaefferist?
1 Corinthians 1:10-15
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.
Daniel,
You said:
The fact is that there shouldn’t be these stupid camps to begin with.
In love I must disagree. Practically this doesn’t flush out. It is impossible to flush out. For example:
1. You believe in the gifts there are those who don’t. You are automatically at odds with someone else. Now your interaction may be one of great charity; however, you disagree and thus you are in another “camp”, or “theological distinctive” or something along those lines. There are Christians who disagree with you.
2. The same for where and how believers should gather.
3. Your position on how church leadership.
See where I am going? You may not use the term “camp” but you disagree with other believers and you don’t meet in a mulit-million dollar building with state of the art equipment because of it. Correct?
Good point, Lionel. Also, it’s just easier to call myself a Calvinist than it is to give you an extensive list of things I believe in.
I suppose there is some clarification required here….
In your post you quoted: “In many cases, those who are in constant friction with others OVER RELATIVELY MINOR THEOLOGICAL ISSUES, do so because…” So I suppose the question we must ask is, “Is this a fundemental issue of the gospel?”
When it comes to the discussion over the sovereignty of God vs. the free will and culpability of man, then I’ve found it hard to see how an individual’s stance on the debate realistically effects how they live out their faith in the real world. The cartoon at the top of the article portrays this very well actually. You see two guys using different “theological distinctives” to defend the same hard heart. In the end I believe that’s what God is most concerned with. I’ve come to place where I see scripture that points to both “sides”, and that in reality we have to accept the seeming paradox where we at the same time “choose God” and are “chosen by God”. Therefore, both of these labels of “Calvinist” or “Arminian” are expressions of the two extreme ends of the spectrum, and neither one adequately describes what I see the bible tells us.
My point is that it is this act of stamping ourselves with a label, regardless of how much more conveniant it might be for us to do so, that is rife with unintended consequences that do more to cause division than to promote our unity in Christ. Obviously there are inevitably areas where we will not agree with other followers of Christ on. I don’t think I’ve ever met another person who held every exact same belief, and priority of beliefs, as myself. (even my wife and I, although we agree on almost everything, have our occasional differences…)
Even though I may disagree with other followers of Jesus in regards to topics such as church leadership, buildings, gatherings, etc., God has been teaching us that we must go to great lengths NOT to stamp ourselves with labels and distinctives that somehow set ourselves apart, as though we’re some sort of sect. We certainly aren’t going to identify ourselves with a given belief under the moniker of a person’s name…. If we ever encountered other house-church enthusiasts who started calling themselves “Violists” (after Frank Viola…) or after any other human, we’d be compelled to rebuke that on the spot! Calvin was just a man, and if his “contribution” to our understanding of God was so crucial that we have to associate ourselves with his name, or anyone else’s, then I think we’ve abandoned a simple reliance on Christ and His Spirit alone.
Bottom line, it’s not that important of a discussion to begin with, and the adoption of intricate labels and specifiers only causes more division than will already inevitably be a part of seeking to follow Christ this side of heaven….
Hey Daniel,
I am enjoying this dialouge quite a bit. I am going to ask something then assume the answer then stand corrected if I am wrong.
I assume that you not only have a problem with the term Calvinism, but also the theological position of the Doctrines of Grace. Is this correct? Because I assume that you do I will answer your response in a cetain way.
1. Depending on how far you take the argument this could have gospel implications. For example there are some who believe a man can lose his salvation for many different reasons. This hits the Gospel at a very fundamental level. As one who holds to the Doctrines of Grace as a soteriological truth (salvation truth) I believe this to be huge issue.
2. Again your statement about labels may be true, but it isn’t practical and even the guy with no labels has given himself a label. We each have theological convictions that shouldn’t be cause for alarm but celebration that we can be both diversed and unified. The division statement is exactly correct. We are not to divide but as Paul says in Colossians 3 “put on love the perfect bond of unity”. Our goal is not to divide but pose a unitied front but a diversified front none the less.
3. I think you can be both labeled and both unified. For example, I am a Charismatic but I belong to a Church that are pretty hard cessasionist. As a matter of fact they are Dispensational and I am the polar opposite of Dispensational. They believe in Elder Ruled I believe in Elder Led, they believe women can’t teach I have modified my views on that during the last 2-3 months, they believe in Senior Pastors I don’t think Pastor should be used given the fact it isn’t translated like that anywhere else. I am a 5-point Calvinist agreeing with all of the tenets derivied in that system they belive in 3.5 to 4 of them neglecting the Paticular Atonement. However, I have been there going on 4 years and these discussion rarely ever come up, though if asked they know where I stand. Why? Because we trust in the same Jesus Christ, there are others that I may struggle with, such as those who have clothing restrictions, or other legalistic tendencies and though they are brothers I will have a hard time sitting through such an assembly. So we have a unified front while still holding on to labels that make us distinct.
4. The last statement may or may not be true. It may be true that it should not be a discussion to begin with; however, what you believe about how God saved you will come up, there should be no division but often times, those who are passionate about these topics may allow things to be a bit heated. At the end of the day though we should walk away loving one another and desiring to see each other grow in Christ.
I’m enjoying the discussion too!
I’m not quite sure how to respond to your assumption, because I’m honestly not sure if I even know everything contained in what is called “the doctrines of Grace”.
What I do know is that yes, labels are to some degree unavoidable. We’ve wrestled with this over the question of whether we should even call ourselves “Christians”, as the term has been hijacked and used by so many people that we would not want to be associated with. (the same goes for terms like evangelical, religious, etc…) But of course, we have to identify ourselves somehow. Lately we’ve found ourselves just calling ourselves “followers of Christ”, which granted takes longer to say, but seems to avoid the cultural and religious stigmas. Of course, any term can at some point become a label that is more divisive than unifying… But that’s the challenge we face I suppose.
I guess I’d need more clarification from you on the particulars of what you mean when you talk about Calvinism, especially in regards to Salvation, and if people can “lose” their salvation. I don’t bother anymore with relying on human compilations of doctrines to help myself understand things. I think God said what he wanted to say in the scriptures… In fact, I was just reading 1 John yesterday, and the whole book basically is about this matter of who is saved, and how do you know who is saved… Just read through it sometime and notice how many times the word “IF” shows up.
5But IF anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John 2:5,6)
Anyways, sure, I suppose I have a “position” on all this stuff, but I’d have to be adament that it has nothing to do with John Calvin, or the Armenians, or the reformers, or anyone else. It’s just based on what I read in the bible. I’m not saying these aren’t worthwhile discussions, I just think it would be way better if they were just kept as discussions about the truth, according to what the bible says. There’s absolutely no real need to appeal to non-Biblical sources to articulate or explain things. To me that only seems to encourage reading things INTO the bible, rather than letting God’s word speak for itself….
So, yes, we can be unified while being diverse. Things can get heated, but we have to let the Spirit have reign over our emotions and words.
I’m still learning that one myself.
Daniel,
I would have to disagree with your statement:
“There’s absolutely no real need to appeal to non-Biblical sources to articulate or explain things. To me that only seems to encourage reading things INTO the bible, rather than letting God’s word speak for itself….”
My question to you then would be:
Which translation is God’s word?
Non-Biblical sources can at times help us to understand language usage and important cultural distinctions. For example: Many if not most Christians in America use the KJV, NKJV, NIV which mistranslate words such as hell, eternal, everlasting, etc. This can have serious effects on one’s theology.
Jon Paden
I seriously don’t know if I have the energy to respond to another question regarding translations and the inerrancy of scripture, and such related topics. Seems like any conversation about anything in the bible inevitably winds up with someone posing such a question.
Briefly, they’re all God’s word. Sure, some translations may have peticular wordings of certain verses that would allow it to be misconstrued, but that seems to happen regardless of any translation, and regardless of the particular part of scripture. The fact is, anyone can twist the bible to support what they want to believe, if they’re willing to be selective in what they read, and how they read it. If you just read the bible as a whole, I’ve found it impossible to escape what God has to say on any truly significant matter if you let him.
I honestly have no clue what you’re meaning when you mention words that talk about hell, everlasting, eternity, etc. I don’t care what Greek scholar you dig up, the Bible is painfully clear that all three of those realities are just that, reality. You can’t relegate them to mere mistranslations of the Greek or Latin or anything else, because all of them are mentioned in a variety of ways, using many different terms and illustrations.
If you fall back to the position where the bible isn’t actually readily accessible and easily understood by the common person, then you have called for a return to the Roman Catholic Church, where only the educated, enlightened priests who spoke Latin were privy to being able to read and understand God’s written revelation to mankind.
Using the “translation” defense is to really open a pandora’s box, one that renders the entirety of scripture in effect meaningless. At that point, anything can be doubted and refuted on the basis of “translational error”. If that’s the case, then we might as well as just go home and write our own bibles, cuz that’s what’s happening anyway….
Daniel,
Jon believes that there is no such thing as an eternal fire where people will perish he is a universalist and as far as I can conjure don’t believe the Gospel. Now Daniel this is one thing I think I will have to divide on.
Jon,
If you are convinced there is no hell, then you shouldn’t worry about what we believe because even if we are wrong we still go to heaven anyway right? I might as well, cheat on my wife, be a serial killer and enjoy it, rape little girls or boys, kill whitey (no offense) sale drugs, steal from my job and curse the Holy Trinity right? Hey as a matter of fact all who preach the Gospel are wasting there time this blog is a waste of time and you posting here is a waste of time. Your theological position says so. Lets eat, drink, be merry, curse God and die, because no matter what His hands are tied and we will be in heaven regardless. No need for a gospel according to you.
Christ says if you love Him you will obey His commandments. Obviously the person whether claiming to be a Christian or believing or not believing in a literal fire burning hell would not have the love of God in them if they were to live life in that manner. I would rather stay away from the term or name Christian Universalist. It seems to cause much strive and confusion. Let’s just stick with my current understanding of the scriptures.
Lionel, I have addressed your questions and false assumptions on previous post. By the way you are still responding it seems as if you have never read them.
A few questions for you guys:
Can someone please explain the apparent contradiction of death abiding forever (literal hell fire to torment the ungodly forever) when the scriputres tell us plainly that the last enemy to be destroyed is death itself?
Can someone please explain to me why hell is translated in the KJV and some other translations from 3 different greek words (1.sheol/hades/grave – 2.gehinnom – 3.tartaarus)?
Can someone please give me the scriptures (correctly translated) that speak of a literal fire tormenting people forever?
Can someone please explain to me why many of the early church fathers believed in reconciliation of all of creation through Christ as the bible plainly speaks of as well?
Can someone explain why the Roman Catholic Church that you spoke of seems to be one of the main influence on the Protestants belief in a literal flaming fire hell to torment the ungodly forever?
I plead with you humbly to restudy this subject. You have recieved this from mens traditions and I believe you are missing out on the true hope of the gospel message to all the world.
Jon Paden
Jon,
Again if you are convinced about this don’t worry so much about us. Everyone will see you in heaven. So it doesn’t matter if we are wrong or not. Let us ignorant hell preachers have so peace.
The primary reason why I even bother to post on this blog is because I believe that you and some of your readers are sincere seekers of God’s truth through His Word. Also, from my current perspective on the subject of reconciliation of the world through Christ, it leads me to see your view as somewhat blasphemus of the true character and purpose of our great, all loving, all knowing, God. Your view would seem to have God creating beings to torment first on earth then to die and suffer unimangiable torment for eternity before Him with no possible means of escape. Afterall, we both seem to agree that God has to do the drawing on man first before man can repent and follow Christ. So if God has chosen only some to draw out of sin, then God through His foreknowledge created beings to sin and have them burn in fire forever. When the same God instructs us fallible beings to love and forgive our enemies and be kind to those who do us unjustly, but He torments all who opposes Him even though they were created to sin and face this most horrific judgement to begin with.
Is this the God that you serve?
Just as the scriptures speak, you err in your understanding not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.
Jon Paden
“s this the God that you serve?”
Yep.
Jon,
You said:
Him even though they were created to sin and face this most horrific judgement to begin with.
No Christian especially those with Calvinisitic Soteriology believes this. This statement is a theological fallacy and heresey.
If God created all things for His purposes, can’t it be logically concluded that God also created sin and disobedience in man. Did man create himself to have will to succomb to various temptations and sin? Did man create sin and the desire to sin? Obviously not! Scriptures seem to speak of this conclusion as well. Rom 9:20-21: “Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” Rom 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Rom 11:30-32 “For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.”
God created all things for Himself and is now reconciling all of creation back to Himself through Christ. The real hope of all creation!
Jon Paden
Jon,
You said:
If God created all things for His purposes, can’t it be logically concluded that God also created sin and disobedience in man.
No it can’t. LOL!!!
Are you then saying that sin and disobedience came into existence without ever being created (outside of God)? Or did man create it? Did man also create the ability to be tempted and the ability to desire as well? Or are these too apart of the creation that God created? Or did our perfect unfailing God create a mistake in humans? But how could this be when He knows the end from the beginning. Did He not know that if He created humans in the way that He did and placed them in such an environment as He has placed us in that we all would fall to sin and disobey? So why can it not be logically concluded that God is the author of all things. For truly nothing ever has or ever will exist outside of the purposes of God who is the creator of all things. The problem with many Christians is that they do not understand that God’s plan from the foundation of the world was to redeem man and reconcile all of creation back to Himself so that the scriptures are fulfilled that at the end or consumation of the ages when all things have been subjected to Christ, then Christ will subject Himself to the Father so that God will be all and in all. Amen
Jon Paden
Jon,
How do you define sin as a creation? I’ve read Genesis a lot of times and I can’t find on what day God said “let there be sin”. Sin is a description of an action done by humans in the same way as a kiss is a description of an action done by humans. Can you help me out here?
Can any action done by humans be done outside of the initial parameters set by God at the time of creation. Therefore the desire to sin or action to sin is an action or desire that fits into the initial design of the creator. Nothing can or will be done outside of the design of the creator. Would you not agree? Sin and disobedience must therefore be attributed to the initial design of creation by God.
Jon,
I’m afraid that this will be a useless back and forth but I will attempt to engage in this dialogue so long as it appears to be fruitful.
We have clear examples, in our every day life, of things that were created by men for one purpose but are being used for other purposes. One obvious occasion was 9-11. Airplanes were not invented to be flown into buildings. According to your logic, the Wright brothers are responsible for what happened on 9-11. I think they would disagree.
In the same way, there are also things that God created that men use outside of the purposes of God, like the poppy plant. I can not envision that God had opium addicts as a purpose in His mind when He created the plant.
In the same way Jon, I don’t believe that God somehow “created” sin because that’s what men have decided to do with the abilities God has given them. I have no doubt that God created Adam with the ABILITY to sin but not with the intention that Adam would sin. There’s a big difference, in my opinion.
Bro. Lawrence D.,
Let’s let the scriptures speak for themselves:
“For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.” -Rom 11
“Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” -Rom 9
Again, these scriptures and others like them seem to bring us to the conclusion that mans disobedience somehow fits in the purposes/plan of God to, in part, show His manifold wisdom, glory, power, mercy, etc. to not only humans but also to the angelic beings as well.