Saturday, June 10, 2006

Blog, Blog, Blog

I've been monitoring a couple of interesting discussions on other blogs. Adrian Warnock's blog asks "Did God kill Jesus?" And the Daily Duck has his response. I've enjoyed reading the discussion & debating as it has, for the most part, been quite civil. Most of the times I've read discussions like this on message boards, they have devolved rather quickly into childish name calling.

3 comments:

Gayla said...

Hi JWD! This is the first time I've seen your blog and haven't yet read. I simply had to pop over from Adrian's blog re: your comment,

"Peter Kirk: (or anybody else for that matter)

I've been asking this question for about 8 years now, and I have yet to receive a good answer:

"What is the difference between a sovereign, omnipotent God allowing something to happen, or causing something to happen (or "being an active agent of it")?"


Exactly. Ultimately, all that occurs is from the Father's hand.

God opened my eyes and put me on a journey of His sovereignty about a year and a half ago; and I'm so grateful that He did. This doctrine has changed my life completely. It helped me to understand 'why' I was compelled to a certain sin, it has taken the focus off of myself and onto Him, it has birthed a new hope in me, as well as a greater awe and reverence for the One who hold me in the palm of His hand, and will enable me to persevere to the end.

And as I continue to read (opposing) comments in the reformed blogs, I am completely amazed at how we are so adept at creating God in our own image. It is so clear to me now - I used to be just like that.

Anyway, sorry to ramble on so. I just had to tell you I agree!

Noah Braymen said...

Josh,

That's a good question:) And your answer is very good too. I didn't take the time to read all the responses on Warnock's blog, but I get the idea. I have one consideration to think about...

A quote comes to mind regarding if God "causes" sin:) I think the quote below would define the party that "causes" as: The party that "causes" sin is inherenty in some way the author of sin in their inner being. This "causing"/authoring of sin renders moral responsibility of the sin to the party "causing"/authoring it in their inner being.

Berkhof says, "God's eternal decree certainly rendered the entrance of sin into the world certain, but this may not be interpreted so as to make God the cause of sin in the sense of being its responsible author (Pp. 220 Syst Theol)."

Here's my view:) Since sin is part of the creation God had to have created it. He does not author or "cause" it, but He ordained it and created it as a tool and uses it sinlessly to the end that He brings about whatsoever comes to pass, for His own glory.

I guess you could say He "causes" it if you mean it isn't one of His attributes, and it is not in His nature. Hence, He is not morally responsible for it in His inner being.

Let me know what you think. I might post something in the next day or so on my blog on the origin of sin as it is related to God.

In Christ
Noah

Noah Braymen said...

Man...I need to edit this again...I was talking with Linds and we came to the conclusion that God doesn't create sin because everything He created is good. Somehow He ordains it to come to pass, yet He doesn't do it. He hardens hearts, sends harmful spirits, ordains calamity, etc., yet somehow He doesn't do it and it is not something tolerable or existent in His being or nature. Confusing...

So He uses sin and evil sinlessly.

Also, I think the way I was using create is similar to your using cause, or others using author, so my explanation wasn't very good. Whew...we'll have to chat further about this sometime:)

I just don't want to be quick to box in God that isn't biblical. So God using the sin of Joseph's brothers was intended for good, not harm.

Let me know what you think.