Well, a command or a law is one and the same thing. So, then, why do you disagree with aruanan when he says that God commanded Adam to sin. If Adam was destined to sin by God's design, it was obviously not Adam's choice, but God's. God made sure Adam's choice was as God wished (that Adam sin) and not as Adam wished. In other words, in the Reformed theology, God is the source of sin. If God did not wish any sin, there would be no sin.
Your theory then—that all God has to do is leave us to our depraved nature for us to sin—is not Reformed theory, but Forest Keeper's creation. For, if that is true, then who if not God gave us our "dead" nature? If God is behind everything, then He is behind sin too.
In other words if God didn't predestine us to have sin-loving nature, we would not be desiring sin. No matter how you turn it around, God is the author of that too. Which is what the Orthodox and Catholics on these treads have recognized long time ago about the Reformed, which is that, with this kind of theology of Calvin, the Reformed are on the fringes of Christianity, if not completely outside of it, like the LDS or the JW.
****Which is what the Orthodox and Catholics on these treads have recognized long time ago about the Reformed, which is that, with this kind of theology of Calvin, the Reformed are on the fringes of Christianity, if not completely outside of it, like the LDS or the JW.****
Rather, we are on the fringes of Catholicity. We believe in Jesus as our savior, but we do not believe in the Catholic church.
Catholics are on the fringe of Christianity.
Well, a command or a law is one and the same thing. So, then, why do you disagree with aruanan when he says that God commanded Adam to sin.
From the excerpts I have read it would seem that Calvin would see "command" and "ordain" as the same thing. I do not in today's language because I have too much experience with how that concept would be misused by the loyal opposition. Kosta, you still harp on Pecca Fortier even after I posted an extremely lengthy dissertation on it that I don't remember you even challenging. My memory is that you just ignored it. I surmised that was because you wanted to keep bringing it up. For that reason I am not going to use the word "command". That is, I do not want you to quote me the way you quote Luther. :)
If Adam was destined to sin by God's design, it was obviously not Adam's choice, but God's.
It was God's choice by ordination, and Adam's choice by execution. Adam and Eve had no chance against the serpent and God let it happen.
God made sure Adam's choice was as God wished (that Adam sin) and not as Adam wished. In other words, in the Reformed theology, God is the source of sin. If God did not wish any sin, there would be no sin.
Good start, bad finish. :) Of course Adam wanted to sin. He wanted to listen to Eve and agreed with her that the fruit was pleasing to the eye and good to eat, etc. God just didn't prevent them from going after their desires. God wishing sin is not the same as God authoring it. Now, if you want to blame God for all sin because He created Adam with the capacity for sin, then you can make a case. But that's where you have to go. For your side, either man is sovereign and autonomous above God's will, OR, God authors all sin. We disagree.
Your theory then—that all God has to do is leave us to our depraved nature for us to sin—is not Reformed theory, but Forest Keeper's creation. For, if that is true, then who if not God gave us our "dead" nature? If God is behind everything, then He is behind sin too.
God creates all individuals, and the original sin they are born with is directly a result of Adam's free will choice to sin. That is God's justice. Again, if you want to blame God for having and following His own justice then fine. But that's where you have to go. I didn't invent God's justice or declare what I want it to be. I just report what the Bible describes. God saw it fitting that Adam's sin be on all the people who followed. God also saw it fitting that an innocent man on the cross could pay for all the sins of all time for all the elect. I didn't make that up either.
In other words if God didn't predestine us to have sin-loving nature, we would not be desiring sin.
Yes, in a manner of speaking. We would also not be "humans" as we understand the term now. We would be something else. God could have created all of us without the capability of sin, but He didn't. He had His reasons.
No matter how you turn it around, God is the author of that too.
God IS the author of the arrangement, but not the author of sin itself. He desired for man to fall and He desired to save His elect. None of this was ever outside of His control. Under the Apostolic view, God appears to let His children run amok, doing whatever they want at all times. This is a description of a totally irresponsible and UNLOVING parent. But then, that's what it takes for man to be the boss. :)
Which is what the Orthodox and Catholics on these treads have recognized long time ago about the Reformed, which is that, with this kind of theology of Calvin, the Reformed are on the fringes of Christianity, if not completely outside of it, like the LDS or the JW.
That would seem to be a fair opinion from the Apostolic POV. Any faith that holds to the scriptures as closely as the Reformed faith does MUST seem like it's on the fringes of Christianity from the extra-scriptural and contra-scriptural perspective of Apostolic Tradition and thought.