Was sin foreordained and pre-determined by God

[Ruiz]

Hi Ruiz,

Nonetheless Peter does seem to indicate that Ananias had a real choice but made the wrong one and must now pay the consequence.

Clearly a tension passage.

That this is a mystery to us is something everyone can agree upon (I think).

However I don't know of any believer of any flavor that believes "Jesus' death was a mere chance" happenstance.

This issue is IMO more of one of human perception and how to relieve this seeming tension between God's sovereignty and man's apparent free will.

Personally I believe the real answer has to do with the fact that God is eternal, without beginning which we cannot relate to as we are without a point of reference here in this time continuum.

HankD

Hank

While the person had a real choice, God is Sovereign in that choice and therefore the choice he was going to make was a part of God's Sovereignty. He, in other words, was not going to choose the other options. He had a real choice, but that choice was set in God's sovereignty.

The tension comes, in my opinion, in trying to say more than the Bible. Some advocate libertine free-will or hyper-calvinism. Libertine Free-will says that man's decisions are sovereign and God allows a universal freedom to man. Thus, they would say that Ananias could have chosen any option even if it would thwart God's plan for the situation, or Pilate could have chosen to release Jesus and thwart God's plan for salvation. The Hyper-Calvinist says that there is no real choice in man. He says that man at all. Both are in error.

Calvinism says that while man makes a real and true choice, that real and true choice is subject to God's Sovereignty. He cannot choose what is outside of God's plan. In this case, Ananias had a real choice, but he was not going to choose, based upon God's Sovereignty, to hold back the money. Or Pilate had a real choice, but he was not going to choose to release Jesus.

Is there a tension? Yes! Yet, to advocate for a Libertine Freewill or hypercalvinism is dangerous. This is why historic Calvinism works. We recognize the mystery in all of this, but we do not deny God's Sovereignty in every situation nor do we deny that man chooses.

 

[MB]

Hank

While the person had a real choice, God is Sovereign in that choice and therefore the choice he was going to make was a part of God's Sovereignty. He, in other words, was not going to choose the other options. He had a real choice, but that choice was set in God's sovereignty.

The tension comes, in my opinion, in trying to say more than the Bible. Some advocate libertine free-will or hyper-calvinism. Libertine Free-will says that man's decisions are sovereign and God allows a universal freedom to man. Thus, they would say that Ananias could have chosen any option even if it would thwart God's plan for the situation, or Pilate could have chosen to release Jesus and thwart God's plan for salvation. The Hyper-Calvinist says that there is no real choice in man. He says that man at all. Both are in error.

Calvinism says that while man makes a real and true choice, that real and true choice is subject to God's Sovereignty. He cannot choose what is outside of God's plan. In this case, Ananias had a real choice, but he was not going to choose, based upon God's Sovereignty, to hold back the money. Or Pilate had a real choice, but he was not going to choose to release Jesus.

Is there a tension? Yes! Yet, to advocate for a Libertine Freewill or hypercalvinism is dangerous. This is why historic Calvinism works. We recognize the mystery in all of this, but we do not deny God's Sovereignty in every situation nor do we deny that man chooses.

If it's according to God's Sovereignty then there never was a choice for man, But then the very word sovereignty isn't even in scripture. Although it is clear man can and does make choices. It is also obvious that God is all powerful and the supreme ruler of every thing. Though this does not have the same meaning that is applied to the word Sovereignty by Calvinist as being in absolute control of what decision we make to follow Him.
MB

 

[zrs6v4]

If it's according to God's Sovereignty then there never was a choice for man, But then the very word sovereignty isn't even in scripture. Although it is clear man can and does make choices. It is also obvious that God is all powerful and the supreme ruler of every thing. Though this does not have the same meaning that is applied to the word Sovereignty by Calvinist as being in absolute control of what decision we make to follow Him.
MB

This is why definitions are vital

We all must define:

sovereign

will

predestine

providence

free-will

etc... accurately as Scripture reveals

Does He reveal He is in perfect control of every single event from the falling of a leaf to the rising of a nation or does He stand over everything and direct it in the path He wants it to go? (Those are generalizations)

 

[Ruiz]

If it's according to God's Sovereignty then there never was a choice for man, But then the very word sovereignty isn't even in scripture. Although it is clear man can and does make choices. It is also obvious that God is all powerful and the supreme ruler of every thing. Though this does not have the same meaning that is applied to the word Sovereignty by Calvinist as being in absolute control of what decision we make to follow Him.
MB

This is where the other side gets away from Scripture. Scripturally, we must hold to God's Sovereignty but that this is a real choice. Exactly how this works out is up to God. As well, the Bible does not give us all the outworkings and philosophy.

For you to say that if it is based on God's Sovereignty then it cannot be a real choice is making a statement that is based upon a philosophy, not upon Scripture. I think there is a tension, a mystery, in this solution. However, I would rather live with the tension than make a philosophical statement that is not explained in the Bible.

 

[quantumfaith]

This is where the other side gets away from Scripture. Scripturally, we must hold to God's Sovereignty but that this is a real choice. Exactly how this works out is up to God. As well, the Bible does not give us all the outworkings and philosophy.

For you to say that if it is based on God's Sovereignty then it cannot be a real choice is making a statement that is based upon a philosophy, not upon Scripture. I think there is a tension, a mystery, in this solution. However, I would rather live with the tension than make a philosophical statement that is not explained in the Bible.

Ruiz,

Is it wrong to say that God is indeed Sovereign, man had a Real choice, God in His omniscience was quite aware of the choice that would be made and yet He (God) had not "intent" that man make the choice he made?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Was sin foreordained and pre-determined by God

Adam was made in God's image. God is love. Love always thinks the best. God loved and trusted Adam. There is no way sin was preordained.

 

[zrs6v4]

Was sin foreordained and pre-determined by God

Adam was made in God's image. God is love. Love always thinks the best. God loved and trusted Adam. There is no way sin was preordained.

Yes to: Adam made in God's image, God is described as love, God loved Adam.

Where do you get the idea love always thinks the best and God trusted Adam?

If love does always think best then best for who or what?

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes to: Adam made in God's image, God is described as love, God loved Adam.

Where do you get the idea love always thinks the best and God trusted Adam?

If love does always think best then best for who or what?

zrs,

Doesn't scripture go beyond "describing" God as love?

I John 4:8

8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love

 

[MB]

Yes to: Adam made in God's image, God is described as love, God loved Adam.

Where do you get the idea love always thinks the best and God trusted Adam?

If love does always think best then best for who or what?

I think Paul's Love chapter answers this 1st Cor 13
MB

 

[zrs6v4]

I never denied that love is the most important and defining term of God. Although maybe Holy is or something else. God is love, lets leave it at that. He desires that above all things as it is what guides all things.


My question was based on an assumption made:

"love always thinks the best and God trusted Adam"

First seeming assumption is that love always thinks best. I just want to know what he meant because I could not make a clear connection to Scriptural teaching.

Second assumption is that God trusted Adam. That is never mentioned in Genesis.

If love thinks best, I would argue that for us, God does give us the best and even better. Yet, for the lost, it would be better that God never create them. Or does God do all that is best for His glory and not necessarily for us at all?

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz,

Is it wrong to say that God is indeed Sovereign, man had a Real choice, God in His omniscience was quite aware of the choice that would be made and yet He (God) had not "intent" that man make the choice he made?

So, you do not believe God is Sovereign? As well, was it merely an accident that Christ was crucified, or did Christ, as Acts says, die at the hands of Pilate according to God's predestination?

You are setting up a false dichotomy. God can be both Sovereign and man have a real choice. The two are not opposites. While it is a mystery, it is not contradictory. It is not I who denies man's real choice, it is you who denies God's Sovereignty.

 

[quantumfaith]

So, you do not believe God is Sovereign? As well, was it merely an accident that Christ was crucified, or did Christ, as Acts says, die at the hands of Pilate according to God's predestination?

You are setting up a false dichotomy. God can be both Sovereign and man have a real choice. The two are not opposites. While it is a mystery, it is not contradictory. It is not I who denies man's real choice, it is you who denies God's Sovereignty.

Where in the world do you get the idea that I think God is not sovereign? I think you are incorrect on this, the false dichotomy, perhaps you are the one who has a bit lower view, to think God is not sovereign enough to allow mankind to have a "real choice".

I hope you are just "reading" me wrong rather than intentionally attempting to suggest I do not think of God as sovereign.

 

[Ruiz]

Where in the world do you get the idea that I think God is not sovereign? I think you are incorrect on this, the false dichotomy, perhaps you are the one who has a bit lower view, to think God is not sovereign enough to allow mankind to have a "real choice".

I hope you are just "reading" me wrong rather than intentionally attempting to suggest I do not think of God as sovereign.

Again, I will reiterate my view. Pilate, while he had a free choice, his choice was going to be that which crucified Christ. Just like that, we have a free choice, and yet our free choice is what God Sovereignly chose for us to choose. That is the Biblical idea. Attempts to try to rectify it further, as you have done, is extra-Biblical.

I do think man has a real choice. I also think God is Sovereign over that choice. You are the one who seems to want to say more than the Bible says in both cases. You are inputting a philosophy not expounded or explained in the Word of God. I dare not reconcile two Biblical ideas even though they are a mystery. I accept both Biblical ideas. Is there a Biblical tension here? Yes! Is this a mystery? Yes! Dare I reconcile the Biblical text where the Bible has not seen fit to reconcile the two? No! Perhaps, when I get to heaven I will have full knowledge. Until then, I will live with Biblical tension and trust God with the mystery.

If you can show me where God gives up his sovereignty, I will agree with you. I don't see that in the Bible. As well, I can see places, like with Pilate, where the Bible clearly shows God is Sovereign even in that situation where evil abounds. Yet, I know God is not evil. Your belief is without evidence. If you agree God is Sovereign, why do you want to excuse it without any evidence? Why should you reconcile that which the Bible dares not reconcile? Can we just trust God and leave the rest as a mystery?

 

[convicted1]

Hank

While the person had a real choice, God is Sovereign in that choice and therefore the choice he was going to make was a part of God's Sovereignty. He, in other words, was not going to choose the other options. He had a real choice, but that choice was set in God's sovereignty.

The tension comes, in my opinion, in trying to say more than the Bible. Some advocate libertine free-will or hyper-calvinism. Libertine Free-will says that man's decisions are sovereign and God allows a universal freedom to man. Thus, they would say that Ananias could have chosen any option even if it would thwart God's plan for the situation, or Pilate could have chosen to release Jesus and thwart God's plan for salvation. The Hyper-Calvinist says that there is no real choice in man. He says that man at all. Both are in error.

Calvinism says that while man makes a real and true choice, that real and true choice is subject to God's Sovereignty. He cannot choose what is outside of God's plan. In this case, Ananias had a real choice, but he was not going to choose, based upon God's Sovereignty, to hold back the money. Or Pilate had a real choice, but he was not going to choose to release Jesus.

Is there a tension? Yes! Yet, to advocate for a Libertine Freewill or hypercalvinism is dangerous. This is why historic Calvinism works. We recognize the mystery in all of this, but we do not deny God's Sovereignty in every situation nor do we deny that man chooses.

Brother, I ask this just for clarification purposes only. If you decide to wear black shoes, did God predestine you to do this ? Or, did you choose to wear them?

 

[Ruiz]

Brother, I ask this just for clarification purposes only. If you decide to wear black shoes, did God predestine you to do this ? Or, did you choose to wear them?

Yes! Again, this is setting up a false dichotomy. I believe God predestined for me to wear my clothes right now, and I know that I chose to wear these clothes. It is not an either/or situation but a "both/and" situation.

Let me ask you a question. Did Pilate choose to crucify Jesus or did God predestine him to do this (Acts 4:27-28)? I am again going to say, "yes" on both counts. God predestined Pilate and Herod to do whatever he wanted them to do, but they were free to make a choice. I seek not to reconcile what God has chosen not to explain any further.

Like the Trinity, accept the tension and rest in knowing both are a mystery and Biblical.

 

[freeatlast]

God can be both Sovereign and man have a real choice. .

Ruiz isn't that like asking can God be a man and God at the same time? The God who knows everything yet Christ not know everything as Christ admitted He did not yet He was God? Can He be the Father and the Son and the Spirit all at the same time and only be One? Does God pray to God, Christ did? The answer is yes. So why can't He be Sovereign and man have free will at the same time?

 

[freeatlast]

Again, I will reiterate my view. Pilate, while he had a free choice, his choice was going to be that which crucified Christ. Just like that, we have a free choice, and yet our free choice is what God Sovereignly chose for us to choose.

Ruiz in light of what you said please explain this.
Matt. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Also Gen.6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

No one can read that passage and see God getting His will. Based on what you are saying God caused them to reject Him and then laments when they do it. This is the problem when we hold one side of both truths. We end up with a mire. It would be no different if we hold that Christ was man and not God, or God and not man. He was both and not more one then the other. God is sovereign, but He has somehow allowed within that Sovereignty for man to exercise free will.

You cannot just simply say that we have a free choice and God decides what we will choose unless you can provide some way to make that work as they cancel out one another.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz isn't that like asking can God be a man and God at the same time? The God who knows everything yet Christ not know everything as Christ admitted He did not yet He was God? Can He be the Father and the Son and the Spirit all at the same time and only be One? Does God pray to God, Christ did? The answer is yes. So why can't He be Sovereign and man have free will at the same time?

We disagree often, but I believe we agree here.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz in light of what you said please explain this.
Matt. 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Also Gen.6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

No one can read that passage and see God getting His will. Based on what you are saying God caused them to reject Him and then laments when they do it. This is the problem when we hold one side of both truths. We end up with a mire. It would be no different if we hold that Christ was man and not God, or God and not man. He was both and not more one then the other. God is sovereign, but He has somehow allowed within that Sovereignty for man to exercise free will.

You cannot just simply say that we have a free choice and God decides what we will choose unless you can provide some way to make that work as they cancel out one another.

If we look at this, is man totally accountable for his actions? These are the verses I turn to and say "Yes." Does his heart completely rebel against God? Yes!

However, are these outside of God's Sovereignty? I note once again Pilate and Herod where they rebelled against God in condemning Jesus. They were completely accountable and evil as was Judas. Yet, God says:

Ps 103:19
The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all.

Ps 135:6
Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.

Isaiah 46:10, "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;"

Dan. 4:35, “And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’"

Lam. 3:37-38, "Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? 38Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?"

Again, I don't see a contradiction. God can exact judgement upon us because we freely chose our path. However, it was not outside of His Sovereignty.

 

[freeatlast]

We disagree often, but I believe we agree here.

No, I don't think that we agree. I say that because you are changing the meaning of free will. It is not free will if we have but one choice. This is what it seems to me you are doing. Lets say I build a house. There is no windows and just one door. I tell my son you can enter the house any way you want, but there is only one door so he enters by that one door. I did not make him use that door, but he had no choice of another way to enter. My friend that is not free will, yet that, the best I can tell, is what you are calling free will in man's relation to God. If a person cannot fail a test then it is not a test.
Please Correct me if I am not understanding you.
Also to get back to the OP question. "Was sin foreordained and pre-determined by God"
Are you saying that God created a house with one door so man had to sin?