Calvinism and Free Will

[Rippon]

Andy : Your post was totally reasonable therefore totally unacceptable to some . :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

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 .

1. And the biblical data would have it no other way. Npetreley, Rippon and I have been arguing the same thing from the biblcal data--it is clearly there!

2. Should we ignore it? Not at all! Rather, we should make it known.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

Now, I see what Npet. and Rippon are applauding. :thumbs:

 

[npetreley]

1. And the biblical data would have it no other way. Npetreley, Rippon and I have been arguing the same thing from the biblcal data--it is clearly there!

The Bible doesn't fit in with some people's theology, so they make the troublesome scriptures disappear in a puff of pompous mental gymnastics.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

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.

Instead of discussing yourself and attributing the faith of a child for yourself and treating the duty to study to show yourself approved and the admonition to mature to the meat of the Word as antithetical to and disharmonious with the faith of a child (that we should assume all believers have), I encourage you to focus on the topic.

As per my disagreements with your stated beliefs, I have done that clearly in previous posts. If you are sincere in wanting to know them in a most pronounced way you will go back and read the thread thoroughly and note them since they already exist. If you are not sincere in your interest in knowing my objections, you won't do that and that is fine, that is up to you but it will reveal whether your interest is genuine or not and whether my time invested in dialogue is being invested wisely, here.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

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

While holding to the error of Calvinism, one certainly can't deride your lack of imagination.

 

[Andy T.]

Instead of discussing yourself and attributing the faith of a child for yourself and treating the duty to study to show yourself approved and the admonition to mature to the meat of the Word as antithetical to and disharmonious with the faith of a child (that we should assume all believers have), I encourage you to focus on the topic.

I never said or even implied that topics like this are antithetical with "faith like a child" (another phrase I didn't use above, either). I admire the theologians who have wrestled with this longer and more adept than I ever have. And I have focused on the topic - I have given you a few posts with my thoughts on the matter.

As per my disagreements with your stated beliefs, I have done that clearly in previous posts. If you are sincere in wanting to know them in a most pronounced way you will go back and read the thread thoroughly and note them since they already exist. If you are not sincere in your interest in knowing my objections, you won't do that and that is fine, that is up to you but it will reveal whether your interest is genuine or not and whether my time invested in dialogue is being invested wisely, here.

I'll have to go back and read the thread - it's been a long one and a lot has been said, but the only thing I remember you saying was that stating "God decreed sin to occur" was tantamount to saying that God authored sin, and then you stated that changing the phrase to "God decreed to allow sin to occur" made everything ok. I don't recall much support on your end for that argument, which is why I said it seemed like you were splitting hairs. Just claiming that the two phrases are different isn't very helpful. The whole thing seems like you desperately want to tag calvinists with the "God authors sin" error, but I have yet to see any plausible proof from you that the charge sticks.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

. Just claiming that the two phrases are different isn't very helpful.

This is at best untrue and at worst dishonest. With this statement you are charging me with JUST claiming that the two phrases are different when in fact I have provided lengthy explanation and discrimination between the two. You are making a statement here I believe in haste and certainly not an honest reflection of the numerous and substantial post I have made clearly explaining the difference.

Nevertheless, this offense need not throw the discussion off-track and I look forward to you re-reading the thread and enumerating my already stated objections.

 

[Andy T.]

Q,

I went back and read your posts. The only additional info that I see in your posts is that you state sin came into the world through the choice of Adam. I certainly have no qualms with that. But that does not deal with the question when we push it back one or two steps from Adam. We still have the facts of God's omnipotence and omniscience and that he decided to create knowing what would happen and having the power to stop it, if he so desired. So I agree with you about Adam being guilty for his sin - it was his choice to disobey. But I also see that God decreed that this would happen. Otherwise, if he really did not want Adam to sin, there are a myriad ways he could have kept Adam from sinning (not creating him at all would be one way, for example, or keeping Satan from the garden, as another.)

 

[Allan]

It is apparent the problem lies in Andy talking past you Alex and not actually 'listening' to (or reading) what you are saying. That might not be your intent Andy but it IS what it 'appears' you are doing because you Alex has gone into some length explaining his position.

Is there really a difference in:
1. God decreed to permit sin.
2. God decreed that there would be sin.

Or is it really just splitting hairs?

Yes, there is a vast difference.
Please ANDY, don't forget that Alex was at one time one of you Calvinist brothers and apparently a learned one at that, so give him his due with regard to the understanding of what Calvinism views.

God decreeing there would be sin means in the Calvinist view God planned TO bring forth sin in His creation and then devised the means to do it. Thus the creature fell by Gods design to bring sin into the world and he had no choice but TO fall.
Thus the author of sin argument.

God decreed to permit sin means in the Non-Cal view that God KNEW a creation with free-will will infact sin if left to himself (God not constantly guiding and influencing them) and God permitted this falling away (sin) by the creatures choice through Gods design to offer a choice.

God did not decree there be sin and then determine how they would sin, but that God knew they would sin and decreed that it be.

Maybe it helps, maybe it is as clear as mud :laugh:

 

[Andy T.]

Allan, I guess if you think the typical calvinist argument thinks that God works evil into his creatures the same way he works righteousness into them, then you would have a legitimate beef. But that's not the case. I certainly don't believe that. Again, it appears to be an attempt to conjure up a strawman and burn him as a heretic.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I guess if you think the typical calvinist argument thinks that God works evil into his creatures the same way he works righteousness into them, then you would have a legitimate beef. But that's not the case. I certainly don't believe that. Again, it appears to be an attempt to conjure up a strawman and burn him as a heretic.

I get SOOOOO tired of this martyr complex.

Did God determined He wanted sin to be part of His plan and then created the means for it or not?

In other words - Did God know sin would come about by the creatures choice, or did God determine He would make sin come about?


This is the difference between:
1. God decreed to permit sin.
2. God decreed that there would be sin.

It boils down to - Did Adam have a ligitimate choice to sin or not?
- thus permit or determine.

 

[s8147817430]

While holding to the error of Calvinism, one certainly can't deride your lack of imagination.

that statement is an error in logic. It is called poisining the well, or some may classify it as circular reasoning.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

that statement is an error in logic. It is called poisining the well, or some may classify it as circular reasoning.

Do you have even an inkling of a clue what my tongue in cheek comment was about?

 

[npetreley]

In other words - Did God know sin would come about by the creatures choice, or did God determine He would make sin come about?

Both. Sin couldn't possibly have come about as a surprise, so by God permitting the choice God knew Adam would make, God determined that sin would come about.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Q,

I went back and read your posts. The only additional info that I see in your posts is that you state sin came into the world through the choice of Adam.

I see so this post mysteriously escaped you and your thorough response?

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.

 

[TCGreek]

Both. Sin couldn't possibly have come about as a surprise, so by God permitting the choice God knew Adam would make, God determined that sin would come about.

We might could get around this philosophically but not scripturally.

 

[npetreley]

We might could get around this philosophically but not scripturally.

This ought to really get their panties in a bunch --

Praise God that He determined sin would come about! For I would not know of His mercy, nor His wrath, nor would I know as much (or perhaps even anything) of His righteousness if it were not for sin. To God be the glory for all things.

 

[Allan]

Both. Sin couldn't possibly have come about as a surprise, so by God permitting the choice God knew Adam would make, God determined that sin would come about.

Wrong. One is describing God as desiring to bring sin into creation and thus is the very agent to make it happen and the choice of Adam or Satan is not only irrelevent but none existent.

The other is the exact opposite.

 

[TCGreek]

Wrong. One is describing God as desiring to bring sin into creation and thus is the very agent to make it happen and the choice of Adam or Satan is not only irrelevent but none existent.

The other is the exact opposite.

What exactly are you arguing, Allan?