Another question for Calvinists

[charles_creech78]

Thank you for a serious attempt to answer the question. I agree God did not intend for men to sin, just as you would never want your children to sin.

But several Cals/DoGs here say that God determines everything and that nothing can happen unless God decreed it. That is why this question was primarily directed to them.

Just been thinking about your ? How did God not determine it or know about it when Adam and Eve already sinned in his site? I believe God did not make us to sin but we did. IF YOUR POINT WAS TO SHOW US THAT HE DID NOT MAKE US TO SIN THEN I AGREE WITH YOU. But to say he did not know we was going to sin then I don't agree because before he ever destroyed the world Adam and Eve already sinned before him.

 

[kyredneck]

....Now how about answering the question?

Naw. I don't have a problem with it. 'What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.' That's all I need to know. There is no unrighteousness with God. Period.

 

[Winman]

Just been thinking about your ? How did God not determine it or know about it when Adam and Eve already sinned in his site? I believe God did not make us to sin but we did. IF YOUR POINT WAS TO SHOW US THAT HE DID NOT MAKE US TO SIN THEN I AGREE WITH YOU. But to say he did not know we was going to sin then I don't agree because before he ever destroyed the world Adam and Eve already sinned before him.

Well, that is a problem. According to many here, if God is not in complete and absolute control of everything that happens, then he is not God. Some call these Hyper-Calvinists.

Now to these people (HC), if God did not intend man to sin it would be a huge surprise if they did, and if he did intend man to sin there is no reason to be grieved when men did exactly what God intended them to do.

So, do you admit men can act independently of God? Are you saying God is not in complete control?

I am not saying God is not in complete control, I believe he is, but I do not believe he ever intended man to sin.

Now, doesn't my position seem like a contradiction?

And that is what this thread is truly about.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think it means that God was very sorrowful for the greatness of man's sin. Sin always grieves the Holy Spirit. It broke God's heart so to speak.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

I certainly wouldn't argue that God intended for man to sin. However, God certainly knew that man would sin. God's sorrow and grief stemmed from His disappointment in mankind's sinful state. I don't think this in anyway surprised God because He knew this would be the case. However, He still grieved because man could have chosen a different path.

This is a little overly simplistic illustration but it is all I have time for tonight:

I would compare it to me as a father with my own children. Right now they are young: 6yrs, 5yrs, and 3 months old. They bring me great joy in my life. However, I know that somewhere down the line they will do something that will disappoint me because all kids make mistakes. The fact that I know that this will occur won't take away my grief or disappointment in the moment.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

I have not given you what you want to believe or hear! What you want to hear is that God does not know what his creation is doing or does. Go ahead and explain your self because I have said what I need to say and I am done!

With all due respect Charles, How do you KNOW Winman's position? Can you read his mind? Answer: NO

 

[Tom Butler]

Since this is a discussion that requires knowing the mind of God, I wish to say at the outset that I don't know what I'm talking about and will not be held responsible for anything I say.

1. Since one of God's attributes is his immutability, and does not change his mind, to describe God as repenting cannot mean that he's changed his mind. That would be a change. So, repenting must mean something else when it's applied to God, different from when it's applied us

2. Maybe we ought to look for another definition of evil when trying to apply it to God's acts or decrees. In Isaiah 45:7, for example, the prophet quotes God as saying "....I make peace and create evil...." In this context, evil means calamity or disaster. And maybe God has the authority (because he's God) to define evil with regard to human behavior, but is not required to apply the term to himself for the same acts.

3. God's own nature demands that he disapprove of evil and sin, and approve of obedience. So I can't imagine God saying of the evil generation to which Noah preached, "well, that went well, don't you think?" No, it is God's nature to be grieved at sin. It is contrary to his nature for him to be happy about it.

4. We can't just explain everything by saying God knew it was going to happen. We also have to deal with the proposition that the reason God foresaw events is that he decided that the event would happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter said that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified "by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God..." And remember that this was planned in eternity past.

So it cannot be denied that God planned to use the evil acts of men to accomplish redemption for sinners. Not to over-ride those evil acts, but to include them as part of that "determined plan." Not only that, Peter described those who carried out the determined plan as wicked. Figure that one out.

5. And finally, we turn to Genesis 50;20, where Joseph told his brothers "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." God didn't just turn an evil act to good, he determined that the intended result (to preserve many people alive) would come from an evil act. Evil, that is, according to our definition.

Do I understand this stuff? Not a clue. I don't know how to make all this fit in some nice little system. But it cannot be denied because there it is, in black and white. God hates evil. God uses evil for good. God grieves at evil. God incorporates evil acts into his plan. Yet God does not sin.

Whew, my brain hurts.

 

[jbh28]

Did God intend for man to sin?

I saw this statement that God didn't intend for man to sin. What is meant by that statement? Do you mean that God didn't force man to sin? Or do you mean that God's plan was to not have sin. My problem with that is that Jesus being the savior of the world becomes plan B. If there is no sin, then there is no need of a savior. If there is no intention of sin, then there is no intention of a savior.

 

[The Archangel]

I saw this statement that God didn't intend for man to sin. What is meant by that statement? Do you mean that God didn't force man to sin? Or do you mean that God's plan was to not have sin. My problem with that is that Jesus being the savior of the world becomes plan B. If there is no sin, then there is no need of a savior. If there is no intention of sin, then there is no intention of a savior.

God is never in the middle of "Plan B."

The Archangel

 

[Amy.G]

Do I understand this stuff? Not a clue. I don't know how to make all this fit in some nice little system. But it cannot be denied because there it is, in black and white. God hates evil. God uses evil for good. God grieves at evil. God incorporates evil acts into his plan. Yet God does not sin.

Whew, my brain hurts.

Tom I think you've nailed it. My brain hurts too, what's left of it :laugh:.

There is no way for human beings with finite minds to completely understand God's mind.


Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


My ways and my thoughts will always be inferior to God's.

 

[convicted1]

The double determinism of some fringe Reformed proponents is biblically, theologically, and philosophically untenable.

You know, Brother, I think its biblically impossible to believe in predestination, and not hold to the "double". In predestination, the DoG'ers believe God elects some, and leaves the others in their fallen state. Am I correct with this? If so, then God has "predestined" both "parties". By Him "electing" the elect, He has "predetermined" their destiny and by leaving the others in their fallen state, He has "predetermined" their fate, as well. So in "predestination/foreordaining", the only logical conclusion is "double".

You can't make a realistic case for hardcore determinism from Scripture. That's why most Reformed theologians believe in a degree of free moral agency outside of the means of salvation.

I think they use that which I BOLDED as a "copout" for all the "holes" in their theology.

i am I am!!

Willis

 

[StefanM]

You know, Brother, I think its biblically impossible to believe in predestination, and not hold to the "double". In predestination, the DoG'ers believe God elects some, and leaves the others in their fallen state. Am I correct with this? If so, then God has "predestined" both "parties". By Him "electing" the elect, He has "predetermined" their destiny and by leaving the others in their fallen state, He has "predetermined" their fate, as well. So in "predestination/foreordaining", the only logical conclusion is "double".




I think they use that which I BOLDED as a "copout" for all the "holes" in their theology.

i am I am!!

Willis

It's a distinction between passive determination and active determination. The "default" state for humanity is condemnation. Although I agree with you that in the end the results are similar.

In essence, though, Arminianism is pretty similar. With exhaustive foreknowledge and knowledge of counterfactuals, God has essentially elected those who would come to faith in this existing system. However, if salvation is a matter of free will, God could conceivably have created a world in which different people are exposed to different influences, thereby influencing their wills to make different decisions. Person X might be saved in this reality, but an alternate reality not chosen by God might have resulted in Person Y's salvation instead.

I don't think Arminianism is very effective in accomplishing one of its ostensible goals (to shift responsibility to humanity in a synergistic soteriology) because, unless one is an open theist, God still has created a world in which he knew for a fact that many people would not seek him. He still chose to create it. Many castigate the Calvinistic theology of election because it essentially means that God is condemning people who never "had a chance" to be saved. Truthfully, however, Arminianism has the very same problem.

For this reason and many others, I believe that the opposite of Calvinism isn't Arminianism; it's universalism.

 

[Winman]

Tom, thank you for post #47, it was very thoughtful and I think you understand where I am coming from.

 

[quantumfaith]

It's a distinction between passive determination and active determination. The "default" state for humanity is condemnation. Although I agree with you that in the end the results are similar.

In essence, though, Arminianism is pretty similar. With exhaustive foreknowledge and knowledge of counterfactuals, God has essentially elected those who would come to faith in this existing system. However, if salvation is a matter of free will, God could conceivably have created a world in which different people are exposed to different influences, thereby influencing their wills to make different decisions. Person X might be saved in this reality, but an alternate reality not chosen by God might have resulted in Person Y's salvation instead.

I don't think Arminianism is very effective in accomplishing one of its ostensible goals (to shift responsibility to humanity in a synergistic soteriology) because, unless one is an open theist, God still has created a world in which he knew for a fact that many people would not seek him. He still chose to create it. Many castigate the Calvinistic theology of election because it essentially means that God is condemning people who never "had a chance" to be saved. Truthfully, however, Arminianism has the very same problem.

For this reason and many others, I believe that the opposite of Calvinism isn't Arminianism; it's universalism.

Excellent observation. I would only add that holding to "foreknowledge = foreordaining" is valid/invalid largely due to how we define time and God's relationship to it.

But Kudos to you brother for observing and stating very succinctly that essentially when both theological positions are boiled down, they come up against axiomatic issues that neither can answer, rather both simply "manipulate". This one reason "I think" molinism is a bit "richer" and logically more consistent.

 

[pinoybaptist]

What is the alternative?

For Him to say, "ah, sheesssh, forget it.....I'll just redo everything, even the angels and the spirits. just say, begone, y'all....start from scratch, whatcha say, Son, eh ? Spirit ? lol. "

"Sorry, Son, we'll have to create a different world of created beings with you at its head...one that's not tainted with sin where you don't have to be the One to go down there and redeem them yourself. One where they voluntarily choose you as their king because it's in their nature to do so and we don't hafta do no prodding and 'quickening' and all that stuff we need to do in this one."

"For now we'll just hafta give the victory to ole Lucifer over there and tell him he's right and that man is just gon' naturally want to be gods, like he wanted to be, then we'll zap 'im and his and start all over again until we come to create a perfectly God-centered created human being from the dust who is totally pro-God and pro-life and we'll sit atop the throne BECAUSE we are triunely ONE God and nothing else."

"I had wanted this one to be with us because they understood they were sinners and without us they are nothin and so they'll worship us not just because we're God but because we are a merciful God, and you are their worthy head because you did what you did out of love and mercy for their sake."

"But, fegged 'bout et, as they woulda said in New Yawk. Let's just start all over again, and start all over again, and start all over again, until we finally hit the jackpot."

 

[quantumfaith]

Since this is a discussion that requires knowing the mind of God, I wish to say at the outset that I don't know what I'm talking about and will not be held responsible for anything I say.

1. Since one of God's attributes is his immutability, and does not change his mind, to describe God as repenting cannot mean that he's changed his mind. That would be a change. So, repenting must mean something else when it's applied to God, different from when it's applied us

2. Maybe we ought to look for another definition of evil when trying to apply it to God's acts or decrees. In Isaiah 45:7, for example, the prophet quotes God as saying "....I make peace and create evil...." In this context, evil means calamity or disaster. And maybe God has the authority (because he's God) to define evil with regard to human behavior, but is not required to apply the term to himself for the same acts.

3. God's own nature demands that he disapprove of evil and sin, and approve of obedience. So I can't imagine God saying of the evil generation to which Noah preached, "well, that went well, don't you think?" No, it is God's nature to be grieved at sin. It is contrary to his nature for him to be happy about it.

4. We can't just explain everything by saying God knew it was going to happen. We also have to deal with the proposition that the reason God foresaw events is that he decided that the event would happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter said that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified "by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God..." And remember that this was planned in eternity past.

So it cannot be denied that God planned to use the evil acts of men to accomplish redemption for sinners. Not to over-ride those evil acts, but to include them as part of that "determined plan." Not only that, Peter described those who carried out the determined plan as wicked. Figure that one out.

5. And finally, we turn to Genesis 50;20, where Joseph told his brothers "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." God didn't just turn an evil act to good, he determined that the intended result (to preserve many people alive) would come from an evil act. Evil, that is, according to our definition.

Do I understand this stuff? Not a clue. I don't know how to make all this fit in some nice little system. But it cannot be denied because there it is, in black and white. God hates evil. God uses evil for good. God grieves at evil. God incorporates evil acts into his plan. Yet God does not sin.

Whew, my brain hurts.

Thanks for your honest and candid thoughts on this.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

For Him to say, "ah, sheesssh, forget it.....I'll just redo everything, even the angels and the spirits. just say, begone, y'all....start from scratch, whatcha say, Son, eh ? Spirit ? lol. "

"Sorry, Son, we'll have to create a different world of created beings with you at its head...one that's not tainted with sin where you don't have to be the One to go down there and redeem them yourself. One where they voluntarily choose you as their king because it's in their nature to do so and we don't hafta do no prodding and 'quickening' and all that stuff we need to do in this one."

"For now we'll just hafta give the victory to ole Lucifer over there and tell him he's right and that man is just gon' naturally want to be gods, like he wanted to be, then we'll zap 'im and his and start all over again until we come to create a perfectly God-centered created human being from the dust who is totally pro-God and pro-life and we'll sit atop the throne BECAUSE we are triunely ONE God and nothing else."

"I had wanted this one to be with us because they understood they were sinners and without us they are nothin and so they'll worship us not just because we're God but because we are a merciful God, and you are their worthy head because you did what you did out of love and mercy for their sake."

"But, fegged 'bout et, as they woulda said in New Yawk. Let's just start all over again, and start all over again, and start all over again, until we finally hit the jackpot."

Your OK in my book....even when you mess up our New York speech dialect.:thumbsup: Who says Yawk (somebody from boston perhaps) york like ork!

 

[annsni]

What if Jesus truly meant what he said? What if he truly did not want to go to the cross? What if his will was different than his Father's?

How do we know Jesus did not mean exactly what he said? I can't imagine Jesus saying anything he didn't truly mean, and we know he cannot lie.

This is what I meant by saying at times God appears to be a paradox. I just want to see if you can resolve this with your theology.

Of course He didn't WANT to go to the cross but knew He had to. It grieved Him to know what was coming because in His humanness, He was in for the horror story of the history of the world. But His will WAS the same as His Father's - to redeem the world.

 

[annsni]

Since this is a discussion that requires knowing the mind of God, I wish to say at the outset that I don't know what I'm talking about and will not be held responsible for anything I say.

1. Since one of God's attributes is his immutability, and does not change his mind, to describe God as repenting cannot mean that he's changed his mind. That would be a change. So, repenting must mean something else when it's applied to God, different from when it's applied us

2. Maybe we ought to look for another definition of evil when trying to apply it to God's acts or decrees. In Isaiah 45:7, for example, the prophet quotes God as saying "....I make peace and create evil...." In this context, evil means calamity or disaster. And maybe God has the authority (because he's God) to define evil with regard to human behavior, but is not required to apply the term to himself for the same acts.

3. God's own nature demands that he disapprove of evil and sin, and approve of obedience. So I can't imagine God saying of the evil generation to which Noah preached, "well, that went well, don't you think?" No, it is God's nature to be grieved at sin. It is contrary to his nature for him to be happy about it.

4. We can't just explain everything by saying God knew it was going to happen. We also have to deal with the proposition that the reason God foresaw events is that he decided that the event would happen. In Acts 2:23, Peter said that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified "by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God..." And remember that this was planned in eternity past.

So it cannot be denied that God planned to use the evil acts of men to accomplish redemption for sinners. Not to over-ride those evil acts, but to include them as part of that "determined plan." Not only that, Peter described those who carried out the determined plan as wicked. Figure that one out.

5. And finally, we turn to Genesis 50;20, where Joseph told his brothers "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." God didn't just turn an evil act to good, he determined that the intended result (to preserve many people alive) would come from an evil act. Evil, that is, according to our definition.

Do I understand this stuff? Not a clue. I don't know how to make all this fit in some nice little system. But it cannot be denied because there it is, in black and white. God hates evil. God uses evil for good. God grieves at evil. God incorporates evil acts into his plan. Yet God does not sin.

Whew, my brain hurts.

Excellent summary of the theology of this subject. Thank you Tom.

 

[annsni]

Your OK in my book....even when you mess up our New York speech dialect.:thumbsup: Who says Yawk (somebody from boston perhaps) york like ork!

It is the South Shore of Long Island and Brooklyn that would say "Yawk" but anyone who actually lives in Manhattan (the "City" for those of us here in the Metro area) says "York".