Defining the DECREES OF GOD

[webdog]

What you need to do at this point Skandelon is withdraw the remarks you made about me not knowing what Reformed people believe and my views not being consistent with them.

That would be the most honorable thing for you to do at this point.

The most honorable thing that can be done at this point is for you to just simply define the term Skan has asked of you numerous times in your own words. Why is that so hard?

 

[glfredrick]

I read your reply 5 times but I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are talking about. Do you mind rewording it or expounding? Thanks

or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect.

You interject (or have found a quotation that you did not cite) your own theology into the equation then ask the rest of us what is wrong with the statement?

Is it not inconsistent to even suggest that "free agents" need some level of permission? Seems that the proposition does not make, but I can see why it would be attractive to those attempting to find a loophole sufficient enough for LFW.

 

[webdog]

Is it not inconsistent to even suggest that "free agents" need some level of permission?

Not at all. In order for an NFL player to reach free agency they must meet the requirements and be permitted to sign by the teams and the NFL under the collective bargaining agreement.

 

[Skandelon]

The most honorable thing that can be done at this point is for you to just simply define the term Skan has asked of you numerous times in your own words. Why is that so hard?

Oh, at this point it doesn't even need to be in his own words.

I wouldn't mind if he provided a definition from a dictionary, but he thinks providing a confessional statement that uses the terms in the same manner he has that somehow defines the term. Even confessions often will provide an appendix with a definitions of terms so you know what they intend when they use a particular word. That is all I'm asking for.

Define the word "decree," or at least respond to the definition I provided. That would be the fair and honorable thing to do in a discussion.:thumbs:

 

[Cypress]

I feel your frustration, remember this exchange.......http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640512&postcount=94

 

[Skandelon]

You interject (or have found a quotation that you did not cite) your own theology into the equation then ask the rest of us what is wrong with the statement?

First, I think I did site it in another thread when I first introduced it before starting a new thread on the subject, but here it is:

Dictionary.com, "Decrees of God," in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary. Source location: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Decrees of God. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: March 07, 2011.

Second, I don't know that it does "interject" my theology into the equation, because I know of Reformed believers who openly make the distinction between God's decrees of active agency and permissive will.

Third, this came from a request of Luke to provide some kind of definition of the term "decree" to which he told me to find any good biblical dictionary. This one is respected and has been around a long time. I'm simply asking what about this definition is inaccurate. You are welcome to answer or join Luke in ignoring the question.

Is it not inconsistent to even suggest that "free agents" need some level of permission?

I see no inconsistency in God permitting free agents to act freely. What is your point?

 

[glfredrick]

First, I think I did site it in another thread when I first introduced it before starting a new thread on the subject, but here it is:

Dictionary.com, "Decrees of God," in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary. Source location: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Decrees of God. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: March 07, 2011.

Thanks. I don't always bank posts to refer to later. As you well know, the source of a citation makes a difference as to the theological position supported.

Second, I don't know that it does "interject" my theology into the equation, because I know of Reformed believers who openly make the distinction between God's decrees of active agency and permissive will.

Permissive will is not the same as the actions of free agents the way you use the term.

Third, this came from a request of Luke to provide some kind of definition of the term "decree" to which he told me to find any good biblical dictionary. This one is respected and has been around a long time. I'm simply asking what about this definition is inaccurate. You are welcome to answer or join Luke in ignoring the question.

I'm trying hard to not come between you and Luke.

I see no inconsistency in God permitting free agents to act freely. What is your point?

I wouldn't expect you to see an inconsistency that is why I am pointing it out. How can one truly be free if one also needs to have permission. Seems rather bounded to me. Is it truly free choice if God is setting limits? Or is it as I've defined earlier -- rebellion against God at the core level of humanity?

 

[glfredrick]

Not at all. In order for an NFL player to reach free agency they must meet the requirements and be permitted to sign by the teams and the NFL under the collective bargaining agreement.

You've brought the failed NFL illustration before. I recall making the point that the agent is not really free. FIRST he must be a part of the NFL. If the NFL decides that he is not a part of their agency, then he can be free all he wants, but not one of them. Once a part of the NFL, he may have some very limited choice between teams, but even there it is never the player that makes the choice, but the team. Only choice the player has is to leave his existing team -- not really much of a choice -- for the result of that choice is the same as if the NFL did not accept him as a player in the first place. He is on the outside looking in.

 

[Skandelon]

ermissive will is not the same as the actions of free agents the way you use the term.

Then what is it? In what cases does God "permit" and how does that look in a system where everything seems to be equally causally determined by God?

I'm trying hard to not come between you and Luke.

I doubts that would be possible considering that Luke has now resorted to inferring my intentions are dishonorable because I won't affirm that Edwards lied in his assertion that his own description of evil's origin was consistent with Arminians, while his is not. Well, we aren't sure if it is or isn't because he refuses to define any of his terms.

I wouldn't expect you to see an inconsistency that is why I am pointing it out. How can one truly be free if one also needs to have permission. Seems rather bounded to me. Is it truly free choice if God is setting limits? Or is it as I've defined earlier -- rebellion against God at the core level of humanity?

First, you must understand that our definition of "free" doesn't suppose there are no limitations. I can choose to flap my arms all day long with the desire to fly and it ain't going to happen. When I say free, I mean, ""A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)." And there is no contradiction in that idea and the fact that an all knowing God would know and allow my free choice.

If you knew your daughter was going to steal a cookie from the cookie jar by the look on her face, but you allowed her to proceed with the act before stepping in to catch her, is that still not a choice she made independent of your determination to permit her to continue? I see no contradictions with this view.

 

[webdog]

You've brought the failed NFL illustration before. I recall making the point that the agent is not really free. FIRST he must be a part of the NFL. If the NFL decides that he is not a part of their agency, then he can be free all he wants, but not one of them. Once a part of the NFL, he may have some very limited choice between teams, but even there it is never the player that makes the choice, but the team. Only choice the player has is to leave his existing team -- not really much of a choice -- for the result of that choice is the same as if the NFL did not accept him as a player in the first place. He is on the outside looking in.

A free agent doesn't have to be part of the NFL. There are street free agents and undrafted free agents signed all of the time. You are only part of the NFL when you sign the contract. You are focusing on only a portion of the analogy while ignoring the main theme.

I also refuted your notion that the player has no choice and it is only the team. It is mutual...nobody puts a gun to the player's head, he chooses the team he would like to play for, and the team that can afford him and use his services offers to bring him in for a workout and then will offer him a contract. It's a two way street.

 

[Skandelon]

I love when football and theology come together as one. It's creates a euphoric feeling that I just can't describe.

 

[glfredrick]

A free agent doesn't have to be part of the NFL. There are street free agents and undrafted free agents signed all of the time. You are only part of the NFL when you sign the contract. You are focusing on only a portion of the analogy while ignoring the main theme.

I also refuted your notion that the player has no choice and it is only the team. It is mutual...nobody puts a gun to the player's head, he chooses the team he would like to play for, and the team that can afford him and use his services offers to bring him in for a workout and then will offer him a contract. It's a two way street.

Well, I suggest that you take your analogy to God (or the NFL :smilewinkgrin and see how far it carries you...


You really think that you have dreamed up some scenario that works, but you fail to realize that without the NFL there is no free agent, no signing, no choice, no nothing regarding your analogy. Without God and God's decrees, there is also no webdog, no Christ, no church, no nothing. Not sure why that is so hard to figure out.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm not the one accusing you of not "getting Edwards" over and over, you are the one accusing me. I've attempted to keep things civil and ask you clarifying questions and for a simple definition of terms.

You ignore this most basic of requests proving yourself to be unwilling to honestly and objectively engage in a real discussion about our points of disagreement.

I understand that different Reformed scholars believe differently and define their terms with different nuances, just as Arminians do, but what is abundantly clear about the quote from Edwards that started this discussion is that it is consistent with Arminianism (by his own admission) and your quotes are not consistent with Arminianism.

I've already addressed this multiple times.

I agree with some Arminians on some aspects of their position on the origin of sin.
EVERY Calvinist does. I suppose there is not a real Calvinist on earth in the history of the world who doesn't.
This is because Arminians are NOT Pelagians (thank heavens!).

It is quite silly for you to think that Edwards agrees with Arminians on the WHOLE of the issue of the origin of sin.

I agree with the Arminian divine that God cannot sin and cannot do a sinful deed.

What is also clear is that your terms and explanations don't seem to leave any distinction between God's permissive will and his active agency. If I'm wrong, fine, but simply explain that distinction as is clearly laid out in the definition I provided of the word "decree."

With regard to the discussion on motive, my question, which you still haven't addressed, is this: If indeed God COULD actively (with a first cause act) do a "sinful deed" with a right motive (making it not sinful), then what is the purpose in speaking of God's use of "second causes" and clearly declaring that "the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God?" If the sinful act can proceed from God, but with the right motive making it not sinful, then why would the confessions say this? Why not just say it like you do? Can you explain that?

I have addressed this repeatedly.

God cannot "do a sinful deed".

But the Bible is clear. God sent Joseph to Egypt and Joseph's brothers sent Joseph to Egypt.

God afflicted Job and Satan afflicted Job.

God killed Jesus and Pilate killed Jesus.

And we could go on and on...

This is what the Confession of Faith I provided clearly recognizes. NOTHING happens by JUST bare permission.

Everything that happens must have power to happen. That power is God's
Everything that happens fits into a plan of God.


You accused me earlier of not being in line with Reformed thinkers on these matters. I have proven you to be wrong.

But what this tells me is that you were not the Calvinist you claim, or perhaps even really thought you were.

If you did not know these simple issues, which you obviously did not since you accused me of not representing Reformed thinking, then you were not much of a Calvinist.

So you conversion into Arminianism from a very shaky at best Calvinism is not that striking.

Webdog is another who claims to have converted from Calvinism to Arminianism. But, like you, he is constantly providing proof that he never really was much of a Calvinist and therefore did not have much to convert from.

 

[Skandelon]

I've already addressed this multiple times.

I agree with some Arminians on some aspects of their position on the origin of sin.

Which ones? Provide quotes from Arminians on the subject of the origin of sin which are in agreement with the parts of your view that I have taken issue with...

That is a challenge.

It is quite silly for you to think that Edwards agrees with Arminians on the WHOLE of the issue of the origin of sin

Edwards may be like you and change his terms and his explanations depending upon the time of the month, but with regard to that particular quote (which is all we have considered) he was consistent with Arminianism. You have not been. It is that plain and simple.

I agree with the Arminian divine that God cannot sin and cannot do a sinful deed.

Yet you have been known to say that God does do 'deceitful' deeds but because his motive is pure it is not sin, remember?

I have addressed this repeatedly.

Yet in all those addresses you have yet to provide the one thing I've asked for from the very beginning of this conversation with you. Define the term "decree."

This is what the Confession of Faith I provided clearly recognizes. NOTHING happens by JUST bare permission.

Again, bare permission implies that there is some permission, what is permitted Luke? Define the term.

Everything that happens must have power to happen. That power is God's
Everything that happens fits into a plan of God.

Ok, do you have power to define the term?

You accused me earlier of not being in line with Reformed thinkers on these matters. I have proven you to be wrong.

Maybe you have but we'll never know because you still haven't defined your terms.

But what this tells me is that you were not the Calvinist you claim, or perhaps even really thought you were.

But at least I provided definitions of my terms when asked.

If you did not know these simple issues, which you obviously did not since you accused me of not representing Reformed thinking, then you were not much of a Calvinist.

I was a Calvinists who provided definition of the terms I used when asked, which is better than some Calvinists I know.

So you conversion into Arminianism from a very shaky at best Calvinism is not that striking.

Who knows, maybe with the right definition of the terms I really am still Calvinistic?

Webdog is another who claims to have converted from Calvinism to Arminianism. But, like you, he is constantly providing proof that he never really was much of a Calvinist and therefore did not have much to convert from.

How do you know? Maybe when he says "permits" he really means determined by God so that it couldn't have been otherwise? Maybe we should ask him to provide a definition of his terms?

Hey Luke, define decree.

 

[Luke2427]

Which ones? Provide quotes from Arminians on the subject of the origin of sin which are in agreement with the parts of your view that I have taken issue with... That is a challenge.

I already have: both the quote from Edwards where he and I agree that with Arminians on a particular aspect of their view on the origin of sin and in the very post you are talking about.

Edwards may be like you and change his terms and his explanations depending upon the time of the month, but with regard to that particular quote (which is all we have considered) he was consistent with Arminianism. You have not been. It is that plain and simple.

You just don't get it. And what is frustrating is that I really like you. I honestly think you are a smart guy. I thoroughly enjoy our exchanges. You seem to have a consistent theology and I commend you for it.

You do not SEEM to me to be a Pelagian is Arminian or nameless theology clothing.

But sure as the sun rose this morning you do not get Edwards. And I do not understand why. It is not that hard. He is very plain. He, like myself, agrees with a certain PART of what Arminians hold to concerning the origin of sin. He, like myself, has never agreed with them on the whole on the matter.

I hope you get it now.

Yet you have been known to say that God does do 'deceitful' deeds but because his motive is pure it is not sin, remember?

Scripture says that clearly. Would you deny the veracity of Scripture?

God cannot lie but he can CAUSE one to be deceived. The Bible is clear on this. You do believe the Bible, right?

Yet in all those addresses you have yet to provide the one thing I've asked for from the very beginning of this conversation with you. Define the term "decree."

I have given you the finest exposition on decrees ever written. I do not know what more you could ask for.

Again, bare permission implies that there is some permission, what is permitted Luke? Define the term.

I do not suppose there has ever been a human being of sound mind in the history of the world who denies that God permits things.

God both brings them to pass and permits them at the same time.

Ok, do you have power to define the term?

You continue to ignore arguments and demand something I have already provided.

Do you deny that the power to do ANYTHING must come from God?

Maybe you have but we'll never know because you still haven't defined your terms.

I now am smiling. It has crossed over now into the realm of amusement for me.

But at least I provided definitions of my terms when asked.

:laugh:

I was a Calvinists who provided definition of the terms I used when asked, which is better than some Calvinists I know.

:laugh:

Who knows, maybe with the right definition of the terms I really am still Calvinistic?

How do you know? Maybe when he says "permits" he really means determined by God so that it couldn't have been otherwise? Maybe we should ask him to provide a definition of his terms?

Hey Luke, define decree.

:laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

I already have: both the quote from Edwards where he and I agree that with Arminians on a particular aspect of their view on the origin of sin and in the very post you are talking about.

Edwards isn't an Arminian. I'm challenging you to find an Arminian who teaches what you have taught...the parts I have taken issue with. And just because you claim Edwards and you are in agreement doesn't make it so. You must define your terms.

You just don't get it. And what is frustrating is that I really like you. I honestly think you are a smart guy. I thoroughly enjoy our exchanges. You seem to have a consistent theology and I commend you for it.

You do not SEEM to me to be a Pelagian is Arminian or nameless theology clothing.

But sure as the sun rose this morning you do not get Edwards. And I do not understand why. It is not that hard. He is very plain. He, like myself, agrees with a certain PART of what Arminians hold to concerning the origin of sin. He, like myself, has never agreed with them on the whole on the matter.

I hope you get it now.

I would like you a whole lot more and maybe even respect you if you would simply define your terms Luke. The fact you continue to avoid that simple request makes me question your sincerity in this discussion. You have provided quotes of people using the term but never a definition. If you did and I missed it please point it out to me. The only thing I remember is that you asked me to look it up in a theological dictionary. I did and asked you to engage with that definition and you refuse.

Can you explain what "PART" of Edwards quote is in agreement with Arminians and what part isn't with regard to the origin of sin? The quote claims that all of what he has said is consistent with Arminianism. All of what you say isn't. I hope you get that now.

Scripture says that clearly. Would you deny the veracity of Scripture?

No, I just agree with some of the reformed commentaries that even admit that what is meant is that "God permits/allows the deceitfulness of their hearts to consume them"...etc...and not that God is the origin/determiner/cause of the deceit, but its okay because His motive is good.

I have given you the finest exposition on decrees ever written. I do not know what more you could ask for.

Providing confessional statements where the term is used is NOT a definition.

The definition I provided is from a strong theological dictionary that even Reformed scholars recommend and use. Why not engage with that definition?

I do not suppose there has ever been a human being of sound mind in the history of the world who denies that God permits things.

God both brings them to pass and permits them at the same time.

And I'm asking for you to explain the reason for the necessity of that. Why speak of something being permitted that you effectually bring to pass. Do you have to permit yourself to do what you yourself have determined yourself to do? It makes little sense to speak of God permitting that which He determined to accomplish.

Do you deny that the power to do ANYTHING must come from God?

no

I now am smiling. It has crossed over now into the realm of amusement for me.

Good, that was an attempt at humor. I tried everything else to get you to simple provide a definition since we started this discussion, so I figured I'd try persistence and humor.

:laugh:

You'd rather laugh, I know, because you are smart enough to realize that the more specific you get with your terms the less vague and ambiguous about your view you can be regarding divine culpability. You know your position is very weak in that area, don't you?

 

[glfredrick]

The possibility exists that Luke fears you using his words against him. You have done that a few times while "just" asking for an explanation.

 

[webdog]

The possibility exists that Luke fears you using his words against him. You have done that a few times while "just" asking for an explanation.

What is there to fear if it is the truth?

 

[webdog]

Webdog is another who claims to have converted from Calvinism to Arminianism. But, like you, he is constantly providing proof that he never really was much of a Calvinist and therefore did not have much to convert from.

Luke, would you accuse each and every calvinist that doesn't agree with you 100% of not being "much of a calvinist"? You act like your view IS calvinism...yet I cannot think of one who believes God can sin, and since He is doing it that automatically makes it a non-sin.

 

[Skandelon]

The possibility exists that Luke fears you using his words against him. You have done that a few times while "just" asking for an explanation.

That might be the case in some situations. Since I was once a Calvinist I tend to know what question to ask that might lead to a point of argumentation, however in this case I even provided a working definition from a Calvinistically friendly theological dictionary and he still won't engage with it...