Calvinism and Free Will

[Alex Quackenbush]

Then the issue is with your understanding of God decreeing something. If from my statement you get that God is an agent of sin, then you proved your failure to understand what is meant by God decreeing a thing.

When you forward the idea that "God decreed that there would be sin" and fail to distinguish the context which is "God decreed to permit sin", or simply seek to state "God decreed that there would be sin" you are indeed making God the agent of sin. Whether YOU understand that or not, whether you grasp the implication and charge toward God in the statement "God decreed that there would be sin" isn't a problem on my part. I believe here you simply are willing to accept the end of your doctrine.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

That's what I've been saying all along about satan, Adam and Eve. I've said it so many ways even little kids could understand it. Only those looking to stir up trouble and point fingers can twist it to mean something else.

From Post #39 your own words serve to respond:

The moment you get stumped you cry, "hostility!"

:thumbs:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Thanks for the links. Piper makes arguments similar to mine,

From Post #23 your own words serve to respond here:

Who cares what teachers say?

:thumbs:

 

[Andy T.]

When you forward the idea that "God decreed that there would be sin" and fail to distinguish the context which is "God decreed to permit sin", or simply seek to state "God decreed that there would be sin" you are indeed making God the agent of sin. Whether YOU understand that or not, whether you grasp the implication and charge toward God in the statement "God decreed that there would be sin" isn't a problem on my part. I believe here you simply are willing to accept the end of your doctrine.

Q, I'm being honest here - can you explain the difference between the two statements:

1. God decreed to permit sin.
2. God decreed that there would be sin.

I really see no difference between the two, because as soon as God decreed to permit sin, he decreed that there would be sin.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Q, I'm being honest here - can you explain the difference between the two statements:

1. God decreed to permit sin.
2. God decreed that there would be sin.

I really see no difference between the two, because as soon as God decreed to permit sin, he decreed that there would be sin.

Andy, I have a dilemma here. I gladly will answer your question but please help my first understand. You make some statements against me that indicate you neither have the time for this debate as well consider me many foul things and now you are asking me to believe you wish to re-engage the discussion/debate in light of your view of my person as well as your stated lacking of time and talent?

Don't attribute silence to anything, Q. Some of us have participated in this debate long before your pompous, condescending attitude (and that's exactly how you come across, BTW) showed up. But it gets tiring and time consuming, and I need the rest and also the time to do other more fruitful things. Q, do not get too overconfident in this little skirmish where you triumphantly rub it in other people' faces that they are getting "frustrated" by the inherent "weakness" of their theology. Do you really think that your postings here are going to rid the world of the evil Calvinists? Go on thinking that, little Q.

But for the sake of others who are also reading, instead of delaying my response to your initial question and basing my answering on whether you will address the dilemma of your contradictory statements and actions I will answer it anyhow.

1. God decreed to permit sin.
2. God decreed that there would be sin.

The appropriate question is:
Why is there sin?

Because God decreed to permit sin.

The first statement makes cause the agent or cause of sin. The second properly makes God the agent of His decree(s).

More importantly it appropriately recognizes the nature of the Divine Decree(s).

The Decree is the all-inclusive will and purpose of God concerning all that ever was or ever will be – all of which originates totally within Himself. God is omniscient, so in one moment of time He knew everything that would ever take place. Our life hangs by a very fine thread; it exists for His glory and for His satisfaction, and this should cause all believers to take their calling and their election seriously.

The Decree of God was simultaneous and not determined in stages. However, due to the finite understanding of man, we must perceive aspects of the Decree in a logical and chronological progression. The Decree of God is efficacious, meaning that it determines all that ever was, all that is, and all that ever will be. However, the Decree is viewed by man from two standpoints:

1. It is viewed from the standpoint of the word ‘efficacious’, which refers to that which is directly brought about by God from His sovereignty.

2. It is viewed from the standpoint of permissiveness, which refers to that which is appointed by God to be accomplished by secondary causes, or by the volition and action of agents. From this comes the concept that the sovereignty of God and the volition of man coexist in human history by Divine Decree.

 

[Andy T.]

Q,

I never attacked your person. Your posting style comes across as arrogant and pompous, but that is not an attack on your person. I don't know you from Adam. I gave you my perception of your overconfident posting style.

As for my "time and talent" statement, I don't think you'll find too many posts of mine herein, and the ones you do find are pretty succint. I posted the Piper article as shorthand of what I generally believe. I could have spent hours trying to recreate his thoughts, but like I said, I have neither the time nor talent.

Back to my question above, which was sincere - I still don't see the difference between the two statements. Thanks for trying to explain, though. I guess we just disagree.

 

[skypair]

Q, I'm being honest here - can you explain the difference between the two statements:

1. God decreed to permit sin.
2. God decreed that there would be sin.

I really see no difference between the two, because as soon as God decreed to permit sin, he decreed that there would be sin.

The difference is one that you don't admit to anyway.

1. "God decreed to permit sin" means that He gave up His control over some agency that, on its own volition, would unleash and perpetuate sin.

2. "God decreed that there would be sin" says that God had to cause it by His own decree or word. God was in the Garden of Eden too, right? Did God coax the serpent to tempt Eve? Did God not warn Adam and Eve about the tree? Did God feed that fruit to Adam and Eve? Just what part do you see God directly responsible for when He "decreed that there would be sin?" Do you interpret the creation of the tree a sin? I just want to know ar what point God had His hands on sin.

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

God decreed sin as soon as he decided to create the world. With an omnipotent, omniscient God, it can be no other way. Now that doesn't mean that God likes sin or desires his creatures to sin, but it is certainly in his decretive will for sin to occur. I believe in the free agency of man, and I believe that after the Fall, man's will is in captivity and is dead in sin and cannot respond favorably to God without the supernatural act of God to change his disposition towards Him.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

God decreed sin as soon as he decided to create the world. With an omnipotent, omniscient God, it can be no other way.

Though your conclusions have failed to be justified through any demonstration of apologetics on your part and though I certainly disagree with this....never minding all that...

This is where you place the decree of God for sin? This doesn't even make good Calvinist/Reformed theology.

 

[bound]

Grace and Peace,

When one looks at God as the 'First Cause' then God is looked upon as the 'First-Cause' of all 'Secondary-Causes'. This would include 'sin'....

 

[Rippon]

Q : In the case of Job which I had referenced in an earlier post (#172) , I said that God decreed and Satan was the agent of God's decree . An agent acts on behalf of another -- an emissary of sorts which I had mentioned before . That's rather rudimentary English and theology .

 

[Andy T.]

Though your conclusions have failed to be justified through any demonstration of apologetics on your part and though I certainly disagree with this....never minding all that...

This is where you place the decree of God for sin? This doesn't even make good Calvinist/Reformed theology.

Like I said - no time or talent. I'm not a professional theologian. I'm not even in the full-time ministry. I've never had formal theological training. Theologians throughout the ages have written tomes on this stuff. Anything I would write would be simply standing on their shoulders. So the "demonstration of apologetics" is out there, and you haven't put a dent into it yet.

I think you are splitting hairs between the "permit to sin" and "decreed that sin would occur" statements. I have yet to see any substantial differences between the two. I do not believe that God in anyway works evil into his creatures in the same way he works righteousness. Any sin committed comes from man's evil intent, and any righteousness comes from God's working in man. Phil. 2:12-13.

My statement on God decreeing sin when he created the world was more rhetorical than anything. I was not making a formal statement of the order of decrees. If one believes that God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he has to believe that it was in some sense a part of God's will that sin occur. I don't see anyway around that.

 

[npetreley]

Like I said - no time or talent. I'm not a professional theologian. I'm not even in the full-time ministry. I've never had formal theological training. Theologians throughout the ages have written tomes on this stuff. Anything I would write would be simply standing on their shoulders. So the "demonstration of apologetics" is out there, and you haven't put a dent into it yet.

I think you do an excellent job. But no amount of talent and expertise can communicate these things to people who are still in their theological diapers.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Like I said - no time or talent. I'm not a professional theologian. I'm not even in the full-time ministry. I've never had formal theological training. Theologians throughout the ages have written tomes on this stuff. Anything I would write would be simply standing on their shoulders. So the "demonstration of apologetics" is out there, and you haven't put a dent into it yet.

I think you are splitting hairs between the "permit to sin" and "decreed that sin would occur" statements.

Let me see, you offer an excuse that you have no formal training, and then forgo the respectable and reasonable effort of apologetics to support your position and then want to claim I am splitting hairs? By your own admission you have disqualified yourself from debate by refusing to offer apologetical support for your claims and objections.

You want to make authoritative and absolute claims such as:

God decreed sin as soon as he decided to create the world. With an omnipotent, omniscient God, it can be no other way.

But you want to be free from the responsibility to offer apologetics to support it and a demonstration of your mastery of the Scriptures to defend it. And if you have no such mastery, you have so such place making authoritative and theologically conclusive statements you CANNOT defend.

You demand from others what you refuse to offer yourself. This wholly inadequate and quite contradictory nature of debate only adds to your misunderstanding and lack of discovery.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Q : In the case of Job which I had referenced in an earlier post (#172) , I said that God decreed and Satan was the agent of God's decree . An agent acts on behalf of another -- an emissary of sorts which I had mentioned before . That's rather rudimentary English and theology .

What specifically is this contending against or forwarding? I understand the point of the reference and its possible impact on the debate but please elaborate how this either confronts the concept of "God desired sin to enter the world" or "God decreed that there be sin" or supports it.

 

[Benjamin]

But no amount of talent and expertise can communicate these things to people who are still in their theological diapers.

And some take all their theological diapers out of a box and will disregard the stench after they have become obviously soiled and no longer of practical use and yet are reluctant to toss them out, still wanting to reuse them after they begin to smell bad and fall apart. :tonofbricks: :laugh:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Grace and Peace,

When one looks at God as the 'First Cause' then God is looked upon as the 'First-Cause' of all 'Secondary-Causes'. This would include 'sin'....

This is in reference to the cause of DECREE(S).

 

[Benjamin]

Grace and Peace,

When one looks at God as the 'First Cause' then God is looked upon as the 'First-Cause' of all 'Secondary-Causes'. This would include 'sin'....

Causal determinism certainly does have its problems.

 

[Andy T.]

Q,

I'm sorry that I haven't mastered this area like you so obviously have. I guess my understanding and faith is simple. God knows everything - past, present, future. God is also all powerful. He can override man's will at any time he pleases. For instance, I believe he could have stopped the 9/11 terrorists from executing their plot, but he chose not to. If you don't agree with me on the Biblical understanding of God's omnipotence and omniscience, then we are at a deeper impasse than I thought.

So from those attributes of God, it is necessary that God planned that sin would occur when he decided to create. If he didn't want sin to ever occur, he would have never created Satan or humans. That doesn't mean he likes or delights in sin (quite the opposite), but it does mean that it is part of his plan. Like I said before, he doesn't work sin into people like he does righteousness; he doesn't tempt people.

That is my uneloquent, feeble defense. Now show me where you disagree or you think I am lacking. If you want to refer me to previous posts of yours, that is fine too.

 

[TCGreek]

When you forward the idea that "God decreed that there would be sin" and fail to distinguish the context which is "God decreed to permit sin", or simply seek to state "God decreed that there would be sin" you are indeed making God the agent of sin. Whether YOU understand that or not, whether you grasp the implication and charge toward God in the statement "God decreed that there would be sin" isn't a problem on my part. I believe here you simply are willing to accept the end of your doctrine.

I notice you have come around. Good start! :thumbs: