>

Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Collect of the Day

The Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Daily Bible Verse

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

God: The Ultimate Cause of the Fall of Adam

12 comments:

Roberto B. said...

That's some good stuff right there, brother :)

elunico13 said...

Anthony writes:
Hello Mr. Ray, I am Elunico13 on youtube and we have been posting comments on the Clark/Vantil controversy video.

I have a question regarding a discussion I had with an unbeliever.

The unbeliever said that since God is omniscient and benevolent that He should've prevented Adam from committing the sin that would "screw humanity over".

I responded that if he is goig to deny God's benevolence that he must justify how he knows anything to be good or bad. It makes no sense to talk about benevolence or or any immoral evil if he didn't have a standard from which to judge correctly.

In short the unbeliever couldn't justify how he denies God's benevolence.

Do you think I approached the unbeliever in a biblical way?
Thoughts?

elunico13 said...

Anthony writes:
Hello Mr. Ray, I am Elunico13 on youtube and we have been posting comments on the Clark/Vantil controversy video.

I have a question regarding a discussion I had with an unbeliever.

The unbeliever said that since God is omniscient and benevolent that He should've prevented Adam from committing the sin that would "screw humanity over".

I responded that if he is goig to deny God's benevolence that he must justify how he knows anything to be good or bad. It makes no sense to talk about benevolence or or any immoral evil if he didn't have a standard from which to judge correctly.

In short the unbeliever couldn't justify how he denies God's benevolence.

Do you think I approached the unbeliever in a biblical way?
Thoughts?

Charlie J. Ray said...

Hi, elunico13... You are partly right. It is true that your friend has no standard by which to judge right and wrong. In particular, you're correct that he would have no basis to say God is not benevolent.

But Gordon H. Clark went a step further than that. Clark said that God is not subject to any law. If so, that would imply something else outside of and thus God would not be the ultimate and supreme Being; something else would be greater than God, namely the law by which God would be judged.

God answers to no law. Therefore, whatever God does is right. It would be stupid of the creature to judge God the Creator. God reveals the law to man as a standard of right and wrong for man and that law is an expression of God's nature and character. However, God is by nature all these things and therefore there is no law to which God would be subject.

Psalm 115:3; Daniel 4:34-35; Isaiah 8:20

Charlie

Charlie J. Ray said...

This is a quote from Clark:

God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex.” True it is that if a man, a created being, should cause or try to cause another man to sin, this attempt would be sinful. The reason is plain. The relation of one man to another is entirely different from the relation of God to any man. God is the creator; man is a creature. And the relation of a man to the law is equally different from the relation of God to the law. What holds in the one situation does not hold in the other. God has absolute and unlimited rights over all created things. Of the same lump he can make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor. The clay has no claims on the potter. Among men, on the contrary, rights are limited. The idea that God is above law can be explained in another particular. The laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature. They are applicable only to human conditions. For example, God cannot steal, not only because whatever he does is right, but also because he owns everything: There is no one to steal from. Thus the law that defines sin envisages human conditions and has no relevance to a sovereign Creator. As God cannot sin, so in the next place, God is not responsible for sin, even though he decrees it. Perhaps it would be well, before we conclude, to give a little more Scriptural evidence that God indeed decrees and causes sin. 2 Chronicles 18:20-22 read: Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, “I will persuade him.” The Lord said to him, “In what way?” So he said, “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And the Lord said, “You shall persuade him and also prevail; go out and do so.” Now, therefore, look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you. This passage definitely says that the Lord caused the prophets to lie. Other similar passages ought easily to come to one’s remembrance. . . .

Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 5331-5355). The Trinity Foundation.

Charlie J. Ray said...

God decreed that Adam would sin. That much is clear.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Thanks, Roberto B. Sorry but I forgot to publish your remark yesterday..... God's peace!

Charlie J. Ray said...

Westminster Larger Catechism:


12. What are the decrees of God?

Answer: God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will,1 whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time,2 especially concerning angels and men.

See also: WCF 3.1 | WSC 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Rom. 9:14,15,18.

2 Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9:22,23; Ps. 33:11.

13. What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?

Answer: God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory;1 and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof:2 and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, [whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favour as he pleaseth,] hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.3

See also: WCF 3.3-4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 Tim. 5:21

2 Eph. 1:4-6; 2 Thess. 2:13,14.

3 Rom. 9:17,18,21,22; Matt. 11:25,26; 2 Tim. 2:20; Jude 4; 1 Pet 2:8.

14. How doth God execute his decrees?

Answer: God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will.1

See also: WSC 8

Charlie J. Ray said...

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, (Ephesians 1:11 NKJ)

elunico13 said...

I hope I dont' get too far off topic with this. BTW I appreceiate your other responses.

How are the verses (Exd 21:20-21) below understood biblically and how can it's principles be applied today?

Exodus 21:21 (KJV)
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money.

Exodus 21:21 (NLT)
But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.

Charlie J. Ray said...

The civil and criminal laws of the Old Testament nation of Israel passed away with that nation:

Article VII

Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

Charlie J. Ray said...

Westminster Confession, Chapter 19: Of the Law of God

4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Exod. 21; Exod. 22:1-29; Gen. 49:10; 1 Pet. 2:13,14; Matt. 5:17,38,39; 1 Cor. 9:8-10.

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.