Does God cause men to sin?

[Vivian]

Sin is disobedience. The very concept of God causing men to disobey is defeated within the very deffinition of the word "disobey"..

Topic: Disobedience, Disobedient
<1,,543,apeitheia>
lit., "the condition of being unpersuadable" (a, negative, peitho, "to persuade"), denotes "obstinacy, obstinate rejection of the will of God;" hence, "disobedience;" Eph. 2:2; 5:6; Col. 3:6, and in the RV of Rom. 11:30,32 and Heb. 4:6,11 (for AV, "unbelief"), speaking of Israel, past and present. See UNBELIEF.

<2,,3876,parakoe>
primarily, "hearing amiss" (para, "aside," akouo, "to hear"), hence signifies "a refusal to hear;" hence, "an act of disobedience," Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 10:6; Heb. 2:2. It is broadly to be distinguished from No. 1, as an act from a condition, though parakoe itself is the effect, in transgression, of the condition of failing or refusing to hear. Carelessness in attitude is the precursor of actual "disobedience." In the OT "disobedience" is frequently described as "a refusing to hear," e.g., Jer. 11:10; 35:17; cp. Acts 7:57. See Trench, Syn. xvi.

<A-1,Adjective,545,apeithes>
akin to A, No. 1, signifies "unwilling to be persuaded, spurning belief, disobedient," Luke 1:17; Acts 26:19; Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:16; 3:3.

Note: In 1 Tim. 1:9 anupotaktos, "insubordinate, unsubjected" (a, negative, n, euphonic, hupo, "under," tasso, "to order"), is translated "disobedient" in the AV; the RV has "unruly," as in Titus 1:6,10; in Heb. 2:8, "not subject" (RV), "not put under" (AV). See PUT, UNRULY.

<B-1,Verb,544,apeitheo>
akin to A, No. 1, and B, "to refuse to be persuaded, to refuse belief, to be disobedient," is translated "disobedient," or by the verb "to be disobedient," in the RV of Acts 14:2 (AV, "unbelieving"), and Acts 19:9 (AV, "believed not"); it is absent from the most authentic mss. in Acts 17:5; in John 3:36 "obeyeth not," RV (AV, "believeth not"); in Rom. 2:8 "obey not;" in Rom. 10:21, "disobedient;" in Rom. 11:30,31, "were disobedient" (AV, "have not believed"); so in Rom. 15:31; Heb. 3:18; 11:31; in 1 Pet. 2:8, "disobedient;" so in 1 Pet. 3:20; in 1 Pet. 3:1; 4:17, "obey not." In 1 Pet. 2:7 the best mss. have apisteo, "to disbelieve." See OBEY, B, No. 4, UNBELIEVING.

For my friend that says that men cannot choose what they want to believe or disbelieve...
""to refuse to be persuaded, to refuse belief," {Here we have evidence of one choosing what they want to and do not want to believe."

Hello Chappie -

There are probably few who would argue that God created the arena and means whereby disobedience could reign. It is certainly by His will that we are in the state we are in, existing in this world, faced with a myriad of choices. And so it is certainly by His will that disobedience exists or at least the possibility of disobedience exists.

If one were to meditate on this, God might just open up their mind to the mystery behind this, to why creation is as it is, and to what purpose.

While disobedience and sin do go hand in hand, minimizing sin to mean simply disobedience is stripping from our holy teachings a deeper understanding of the mysteries and will of God.

In other words, with this simplification, we lose the deeper understanding of what disobedience is and why we are harmed by it.

You seem, Chappie, to say that obedience is belief and so then I ask what is belief?

If we approach this another way we can come to a deeper understanding of these things, of sin and disobedience and disbelief - beyond merely saying that sin is disobedience is belief - which in turn will lead is to a deeper understanding of the mysteries and will of God.

And perhaps this is where you are headed? [A clue is found in John 3 where Jesus explains why we ought to believe.]

The Hebrew and Greek words that we translate into sin actually mean missing the mark - not hitting the bulls eye or not doing things the right way, the way that will produce the most fruit.

Looking at sin from this perspective gives us leeway into a more complete understanding of what obedience and belief are all about.

In other words, there is purpose for our obedience and belief, beyond earning brownie points with God, just as there is purpose for our disobedience and disbelief, these purposes being clear in the words that Jesus himself speaks if we will go beyond the superficial or surface english translations and understanding. This in turn will lead us right into the answer to the question you are asking, does God really cause some to sin and some to not sin?

Or is it solely by our choice?

A deeper look into the teachings of the New Testament will aid us in understanding this issue in the Old Testament.




vivian

[auggybendoggy]

Chappie,
thats not addressing the issue.

The question as I stated is...
Does God EVER cause men to sin. The point being Pharoa did not have a choice when moses was going to him.

Sure you could (though it's not proven) argue as you do that God chose pharoa to be king because he was evil. But again, that is not anywhere in scripture. You have to read into the text.

Paul says in romans that God raised pharoa up FOR HIS (God's) PURPOSE. That GOD HARDENES WHOM HE WANTS.

I realzie both the LFW and DET schools have their points of views.

But the point is Does God EVER cause them. And the reason I say that is because if God MADE PHAORA HARD UNTO DISOBEDIENCE FROM HIS COMMAND (let isreal go) THEN IS GOD INDIRECTLY CAUSING HIM TO DISOBEY BY NOT GIVING HIM THE CHANCE TO OBEY?

Your view point does not seem to address this so far.

Aug

[Chappie]

Chappie,
That’s not addressing the issue.

The question as I stated is...
Does God EVER cause men to sin? The point being Pharaoh did not have a choice when Moses was going to him.

Your answer is an emphatic NO!!!! I would explain, but your countenance tells me that it would be a waste of time. Still your answer is NO!!! God does not cause men to sin...

Pharaoh had the same option afforded all men to obey God, God gave him until Friday to cease his rebellion, today is Saturday. He chose within the time frame allotted by God to him to remain in rebellion. Today is Saturday, no room for a change of mind, it's time to pay the piper... God closed the door (hardened) to a change of mind by pharaoh until his demonstration was over.

Sure you could (though it's not proven) argue as you do that God chose pharaoh to be king because he was evil. But again, that is not anywhere in scripture.

And you could argue that Pharaoh never missed a day in Church before God harde3ned him, but that's not in scripture either... How do you explain pharaoh’s treatment of the Jews before Moses approached the burning Bush and then approached Pharaoh on God's behalf? Note the proximity of Pharaoh’s hardening with the advent of his being approached by Moses...

[/quote]Paul says in Romans that God raised pharoa up FOR HIS (God's) PURPOSE. That GOD HARDENES WHOM HE WANTS.

I realzie both the LFW and DET schools have their points of views.

But the point is Does God EVER cause them. And the reason I say that is because if God MADE PHAORA HARD UNTO DISOBEDIENCE FROM HIS COMMAND (let isreal go) THEN IS GOD INDIRECTLY CAUSING HIM TO DISOBEY BY NOT GIVING HIM THE CHANCE TO OBEY?

Your view point does not seem to address this so far.

Aug[/QUOTE]

Auggy, within the context of Gods purpose for hardening Pharoah so that he could demonstrate his power and deity not only to the Israelites, but to the Egyptians also, God hardened Pharoah so that he would not acquiesce to god's demands as presented by Moses. The context of what is written about Pharaoh cannot be taken out of the context and placed in a context of God being responsible for all sin...

Just like the account of God choosing Jacob over Esau as the one through which he will fulfill his promises to Abraham cannot be taken out of that context and used in the context of proving predestination and personal election…

Now I know that I am not the sweetest cookie in the cookie jar, but my maker did add a little sugar… I am conscience of context and its applications…
Have a blessed day...

[auggybendoggy]

Chappie,
I understand your view as it's accepted by many such as Robert Shank (Elect in the Son). However you are stating clearly that at SOME POINT Phaora did not act in free will. God stripped him of his free will due to his persistence in disobeying him.

Thus you must conclude that God called pharoa to let Isreal God and PHAROA COULD NOT OBEY because GOD MADE IT SO HE COULD NOT OBEY.

Why pharoa is hardedned is not the issue.

The issue is God or has God ever retracted free will that men have NO ESCAPE but to disobey.

This does not mean God caused him to sin but many would argue it's as good as causing a man to sin.

For example...

If you continue to disobey God in the year 2000 (for the full year) and then on jan 1 2001 God makes a move. On jan 1 2001 God asks chappie to go to church. But on jan 2001 God hardens chappies heart so that chappie will NOT GO TO CHURCH.

So I think we agree, Pharoa at some point lost his free will to choose.

Aug

[Chappie]

Chappie,
I understand your view as it's accepted by many such as Robert Shank (Elect in the Son). However you are stating clearly that at SOME POINT Phaora did not act in free will. God stripped him of his free will due to his persistence in disobeying him.

Auggy.
I have never denied God's sovereign to intervene in the affairs of men. Persistently and consistently I have stated that certain avenues of freewill were denied Pharaoh during God's demonstration of his power. Do you have any scriptural evidence that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened unto death...?

Thus you must conclude that God called pharoa to let Isreal God and PHAROA COULD NOT OBEY because GOD MADE IT SO HE COULD NOT OBEY.

Must I now say it again; Pharaoh’s heart was hardened in a state of rebellion pending the completion of God's demonstration of his deity and power.

The issue is God or has God ever retracted free will that men have NO ESCAPE but to disobey.

This does not mean God caused him to sin but many would argue it's as good as causing a man to sin.

Auggy, before law, sin is not imputed....

For example...

If you continue to disobey God in the year 2000 (for the full year) and then on jan 1 2001 God makes a move. On jan 1 2001 God asks chappie to go to church. But on jan 2001 God hardens chappies heart so that chappie will NOT GO TO CHURCH.

God is not as frivolous as that. What's the purpose in that? Your example is not contextually valid until God reveals his reasons for doing so...

So I think we agree, Pharoa at some point lost his free will to choose.

Maybe so, I don't know, I lost track of even what we are talking about... What is our main point of contention…? Must get back to the basics…

[auggybendoggy]

the issue is if God indirectly causes men to sin by giving them no choice in the matter such as pharoa.

Chappie, I never said you denied God's sov. in intervening. I am simply asserting that pharoa was called to let isreal go and God made it so he could not.

Shank and yourself can speculate as to God having to have a reason to do this (pharoas past disobedience) but scripture does not say that. In fact :Paul states God raised up pharoa for that purpose. It does not say Satan raised him up so that God could use him.

Aug

[Chappie]

the issue is if God indirectly causes men to sin by giving them no choice in the matter such as pharoa.

Chappie, I never said you denied God's sov. in intervening. I am simply asserting that pharoa was called to let isreal go and God made it so he could not.

Shank and yourself can speculate as to God having to have a reason to do this (pharoas past disobedience) but scripture does not say that. In fact :Paul states God raised up pharoa for that purpose. It does not say Satan raised him up so that God could use him.

Aug

So now you want to import Satan into my words. Auggy, I never said anything about Pharaoh being raised up by Satan... Why do you do things like this...

Again I must ask, what is the purpose that you have in mind? What POV are you asserting...?

BTW, the hardening of ones heart does not indicate that God makes the person evil, or even more evil than he was before the hardening. It means that the condition that he was in before the hardening, God makes him more obstinate in that position.

What does our conversation have to do with choice & freewill? What position are you trying to advocate or support?

The Plague of Hail
13 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18 Therefore, at this time tomorrow I will send the worst hailstorm that has ever fallen on Egypt, from the day it was founded till now. 19 Give an order now to bring your livestock and everything you have in the field to a place of shelter, because the hail will fall on every man and animal that has not been brought in and is still out in the field, and they will die.'

[DIATRIBE]

Auggy.
I have never denied God's sovereign to intervene in the affairs of men. Persistently and consistently I have stated that certain avenues of freewill were denied Pharaoh during God's demonstration of his power. Do you have any scriptural evidence that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened unto death...?

Chappie stated "The words sovereign and sovereignty to the best of my knowledge do not appear in the bible" Hypocrite!

Since God causes all things, there is no such thing as "free will". You have to prove man has the power (being a slave) to make uncaused choices.

[Chappie]

Chappie stated "The words sovereign and sovereignty to the best of my knowledge do not appear in the bible" Hypocrite!

Since God causes all things, there is no such thing as "free will". You have to prove man has the power (being a slave) to make uncaused choices.

Have you taken your meds?

[auggybendoggy]

I don't recall Chappie ever calling anyone a hypocrite. He stands for what he believe whether it be right or wrong. I agree ol chap is a bit defensive, but WE ALL GET LIKE THAT.

Chap,
I did not say you said satan raised up phaora for God's purpose. I'm simply pointing out that God raised up pharoa for his own purpose. If one follows the thought of free will then God did not raise ANYONE up for any purpose but God does what he can with what man chooses. This is a great flaw for LFW. If God raised him up for his (God's) purpose then did pharoa have a free will choice to not be used for God's purpose? Would God have had to change his strategies because O'l pharoa simply was a good guy and God cannot harden him?

I agree with calvinists that romans 9 does entail a part of God of which asserts that GOD IS THE ONE WHO BOUND MEN TO DISOBEDIENCE. Not satan and not man. Does God cause men to sin??? Well thats a vauge question? Thats why I asked Does God EVER cause men to sin? or one could ask Does God never cause men to do good? What does "cause" mean??? Coerce? Manipulate? Influence? What entails "cause"?

So my main point is the definition of cause is vauge and thus the question is impossible to answer.

If the point of the question is to destroy determinism then quite a bit more has to be asked to begin to understand the complex issues at hand.

Sorry if my statements sound like "chappie believe satan raised up pharoa" I GIVE YOU MY WORD, I DID NOT MEAN THAT AT ALL.
I am simply throwing out logical deductions that if God did not raise up pharoa, then either satan or man did? But Paul write it was God who raised him up. Thus could pharoa have NOT BEEN raised up by God by being obedient and God would not be able to display his power to the world???

Aug

[DIATRIBE]

I don't recall Chappie ever calling anyone a hypocrite. He stands for what he believe whether it be right or wrong. I agree ol chap is a bit defensive, but WE ALL GET LIKE THAT.

Chap,
I did not say you said satan raised up phaora for God's purpose. I'm simply pointing out that God raised up pharoa for his own purpose. If one follows the thought of free will then God did not raise ANYONE up for any purpose but God does what he can with what man chooses. This is a great flaw for LFW. If God raised him up for his (God's) purpose then did pharoa have a free will choice to not be used for God's purpose? Would God have had to change his strategies because O'l pharoa simply was a good guy and God cannot harden him?

I agree with calvinists that romans 9 does entail a part of God of which asserts that GOD IS THE ONE WHO BOUND MEN TO DISOBEDIENCE. Not satan and not man. Does God cause men to sin??? Well thats a vauge question? Thats why I asked Does God EVER cause men to sin? or one could ask Does God never cause men to do good? What does "cause" mean??? Coerce? Manipulate? Influence? What entails "cause"?

So my main point is the definition of cause is vauge and thus the question is impossible to answer.

If the point of the question is to destroy determinism then quite a bit more has to be asked to begin to understand the complex issues at hand.

Sorry if my statements sound like "chappie believe satan raised up pharoa" I GIVE YOU MY WORD, I DID NOT MEAN THAT AT ALL.
I am simply throwing out logical deductions that if God did not raise up pharoa, then either satan or man did? But Paul write it was God who raised him up. Thus could pharoa have NOT BEEN raised up by God by being obedient and God would not be able to display his power to the world???

Aug

The question that needs to be answered is, "Why does God CAUSE man to sin?"

[auggybendoggy]

Diatribe,
If a man hires a hit man to murder a innocent man. Is the man hired guilty of murder?

If a man programs a computer to illegally withdrawl millions of dollars from thousands of people did the man steal money?

Are these men guilty or is the hitman and the computer guilty?

These questions ential your question of "why".

Aug

Aug

[Chappie]

Diatribe,
If a man hires a hit man to murder a innocent man. Is the man hired guilty of murder?

If a man programs a computer to illegally withdrawl millions of dollars from thousands of people did the man steal money?

Are these men guilty or is the hitman and the computer guilty?

These questions ential your question of "why".

Aug

Auggy:
This theory of yours that results in God as the cause of sin is dependent upon the concept of infinite regress for its validity... Infinite regress holds that as creator, God is responsible for everything that happens in creation subject to creation.

If infinite regress were true, then God is deterministically the cause of all that happens. Perhaps there are some aspects of creation that through infinite regress can lead back to God as the cause. What you need to graft into your concept of infinite regress is the concept of free will. Volition always places a break in the chain of regression. You see when ever a person makes a choice that is independent of God's absolute control; the chain is broken that leads back to God... It can there be said, "The buck stops here.

It happens this way: God allows men the option of choosing option "A" and option "B". {"A" equals good. "B" equals evil.} God commands men to choose option "A". Thereby option "A" is the link in the chain that keeps infinite regress in place. But If men choose option "B"; through disobedience the chain of infinite regress ends there with that act of disobedience...

If a man hires a hit man to commit a murder and the man does so, the law if regress is in place, both are guiltily. The originator is guilty as an accessory, and also guilty of moral culpability...

However God does not hire men to commit murder and then hold them guilty if he utilized his power to bring said murder to fruition. A command from God to take a life, cannot even result in murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of another’s life. If God commands me to kill someone, in God's court house, THE ACT IS NOT UNLAWFUL. We still might be guilty in man's court, {Men in general did not hear the command} but in under God's system of justice, the order came from the supreme law giver, there it is nothing more than a command obeyed.

Thou shalt not steal; this is God's corporate command to men in this matter. If we steal it is disobedience, it is sin... Nevertheless if you have some jewelry that God wants stolen and he instructs me to steal them, for me to obey his command {to me} is not disobedience. It may even appear as disobedience to you unless you were present and coherent when God issued me the command: But if you were there and heard the command that God issued to me, you would know that I acted obediently to what God commanded me to do. {NOY SIN} Now what if you heard him issue me the command, and you decided to grab a little glory by committing the theft. For you it is sin, because without a personal command to steal, you are still under the corporate command, "Thou shalt not steal"...

Same premise when it comes to murder: Under a command from God to commit such an act, it ceases to be disobedience, it becomes obedience. And thereby it ceases to be an unlawful taking of life, under God's command and causation it becomes an act of obedience...

Just remember, that in the theory of infinite regress upon which determinism and creative causation is based, disobedience breaks the chain. And where the chain is broken, there accountability and responsibility stops... When we reach the crossroads of life, if God commands we take the road to the right, and we do: Our actions are in harmony with God's will and the chain of infinite regress remains in place. Go to the left, the chain is broken, God is no longer directly of culpably responsible, we usurp that accountability when we disobey even though God provided us with both options... Our responsibility to obey God’s commands is not broken…

Take the Crusades, if the crusaders did in fact have a mandate from God to slaughter all those people, it is not sin, it is not disobedience. But if not, Hitler is nothing more or less than a reincarnation of the crusades…

Betcha that Diatribe is still trying the word sovereign and sovereignty in the scriptures. It will be difficult for him to accept that a hypocrite could possibly be correct. Again I say “possibly”. If he had found it tho, by now he would have posted the passage… Even for me, it is strange not to find them…

~El hippocritto.
~El Chappito…

[Chappie]

The question that needs to be answered is, "Why does God CAUSE man to sin?"

The answer is, God does not....
See last post...

[DIATRIBE]

Diatribe,
If a man hires a hit man to murder a innocent man. Is the man hired guilty of murder?

If a man programs a computer to illegally withdrawl millions of dollars from thousands of people did the man steal money?

Are these men guilty or is the hitman and the computer guilty?

These questions ential your question of "why".

Aug

Aug

Auggy, these are foolish questions! There are no innocent men, all men are guilty.

"...We know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those within the Law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be under judgment to God".

"Why does God CAUSE man to sin?" , is a fundamental question! Y ou have not answered "WHY"

OR Auggy, are you comparing God to a man?

The Bibles states,

To whom then will you compare God?

Or what likeness will you compare to Him?

Have you not known?

Have you not heard?

Has it not been told you from the beginning?

Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

It is He who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in; who brings the rulers to nothing; He makes the judges of the earth as vanity. Yes, they shall not be planted; yes, they shall not be sown. Yes, their stump shall not take root in the earth. And He shall also blow on them, and they shall wither, and the tempest shall take them away like stubble.

To whom then will you compare Me, or am I equaled? says the Holy One.

Remember this and be a man; return it on your heart, transgressors. Remember former things from forever, for I am God, and no one else is God, even none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past those things which were not done, saying, My counsel shall rise; and, I will do all My desire; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My counsel from a far off land. Yes, I have spoken; yes, I will CAUSE it to come; I have formed; yes, I WILL DO IT. (Isa 40 and 46)