Does God Ordain Our Sins?

[Sai]

You do realize that I have a Master's Degree in this stuff, right? I've actually studied Greek (and Hebrew) at the Master's level. In other words, I'm not looking up what other people say about this passage or that and finding one that I like. I'm able to evaluate whether or not their arguments are correct--something that you simply cannot do.

The Archangel

Yea right. Sure you did Arch


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

[The Archangel]

Yea right. Sure you did Arch

Are you suggesting that I’m lying about my education?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sai]

Are you suggesting that I’m lying about my education?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just foolish jesting. I appreciate your dedication to the word my friend.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

[The Archangel]

Just foolish jesting. I appreciate your dedication to the word my friend.

Thank you... and thanks for the clarification.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Derf B]

The opening statement to chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is entitled, "Of God's Eternal Decree", we read:

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"

It then goes on to say, "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Now, either God has ordained "whatsoever comes to pass", or He has not.

The Reformed theologian, Dr Wayne Grudem, among others, has this to say:

"In Spite of All of the Foregoing Statements, We Have to Come to the Point Where We Confess That We Do Not Understand How It Is That God Can Ordain That We Carry Out Evil Deeds and Yet Hold Us Accountable for Them and Not be Blamed Himself: We can affirm that all of these things are true, because Scripture teaches them. But Scripture does not tell us exactly how God brings this situation about or how it can be that God holds us accountable for what he ordains to come to pass. Here Scripture is silent, and we have to agree with Berkhof that ultimately “the problem of God’s relation to sin remains a mystery.” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology p. 175.”

(Systematic Theology, p.330. 1994, 2000 edition)

On the word "ordain" we are told that it means, "to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law...destine, foreordain" (Websters)

If, as it is claimed by Calvinists/Reformed, that Almighty God "ordains", or "decrees" that us humans "carry out evil deeds", which are sinful, and we do so. Is it morally right, that this same God, Who actually "orders" that we do this, can then hold US accountable for carrying out HIS actions, and punish US??? This teaching is abhorrent, and blashphemous, and goes aganinst the very Holy Nature of the God of the Holy Bible!

So, by the teachings of the Calvinists/Reformed, it is Almighty God, Who "ordains" that we murder, commit adultery, rape, steal, and carry out every form of heinous sins, and though we are doing what God so "orders" that we do, YET, He holds US responsible for these sinful acts, and punishes US for doing what HE has so "ordained"???

This "doctrine" is what the Apostle Paul calls, "doctrines of demons", as its origin is from the pit of hell, and the devil himself!

God does indeed "permit/allow" that we sin, and this is OUR choosing; but can NEVER "ordain" that we do so. There is a huge difference.

The Westminster divines knew they had entered into contradictory territory. That's why they included the part about "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Somebody's will must be offered violence.

Here are the 2 options:
1. God ordained what He already knew was going to happen. This is the Arminian position.
2. God ordained what He wanted to happen. This is the Calvinist position.

#1 is untenable. If God knows something is going to happen because it is determined outside of himself, then the source outside himself is an agent in the determining. But if that agent does not yet exist, then something outside that agent is the real agent. If God knows everything everybody is going to do before they exist, then
A. No human has any control over what he's going to do in life (because it's already set in stone before he exists).
B. God has no control over what any human is going to do in life (because it is set in stone by someone besides Him, and He can't change it).
That only leaves an additional agent that is more powerful than God. Like the Fates of Greek mythology, which means means God is not really God.

What about #2? This IS tenable. If God decides to control all things from the beginning, before anyone else exists, that is up to Him. But it makes God the author of sin, because no one else is involved in the decision--no one else exists to be involved. So #2 is tenable, but it is unacceptable due to God's revelation of His character in His word.

If, therefore, #1 (Arminianism) is untenable and #2 (Calvinism) is unacceptable, what options are left.

There's only one option remaining. God does not know everything every person is going to do throughout time.

Open theism is both tenable and acceptable according to God's word.

This part of the Westminster Confession has serious contradictions, and it should not be used.

 

[Iconoclast]

To discount Wallace is to discount one of the most recognized scholars of today. To prefer the older scholars is to deny the research that has been done since they've died. Both courses of action are asinine. But, let's not pretend you discount Wallace because you can come up with a different argument; you just don't like his because it proves you wrong.

Wallace refers to τεταγμένοι as a verb, but it is a participle. If you knew Greek, you'd know that participles are not verbs and verbs are not participles. While participles have similarities to verbs, they are not verbs.

It is quite funny that you disparage Wallace and then refer to him in the same post... Decide whether he's worthy of your reference or not, but you can't have it both ways.



It is not lost on me (or anyone with Greek acumen--which you do not have) that you have no ability to prove Robertson right.

Now, while I disagree with Robertson for reasons that will be seen in a subsequent post, you really should read the entire entry for Robertson's Word Pictures In The New Testament, because your quote is only convenient for your argument if you don't quote it in full. Here's the full citation:

As the Gentiles heard this they were glad (ἀκουοντα τα ἐθνη ἐχαιρον [akouonta ta ethnē echairon]). Present active participle of ἀκουω [akouō] and imperfect active of χαιρω [chairō], linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. Glorified the word of God (ἐδοξαζον τον λογον του θεου [edoxazon ton logon tou theou]). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. “The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues” (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether Gal. 4:13 describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. As many as were ordained to eternal life (ὁσοι ἠσαν τεταγμενοι εἰς ζωην αἰωνιον [hosoi ēsan tetagmenoi eis zōēn aiōnion]). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of τασσω [tassō], a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word “ordain” is not the best translation here. “Appointed,” as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God’s side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. Believed (ἐπιστευσαν [episteusan]). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of πιστευω [pisteuō]. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believe were appointed.” It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Ac 13:48.
​

Notice this part that you left out:

Believed (ἐπιστευσαν [episteusan]). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of πιστευω [pisteuō]. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean “those who believe were appointed.” It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God. (emphasis mine)​

So, in your desire to prove me wrong (which you haven't done because you can neither prove nor disprove anything in Greek due to your demonstrated non-facility with it) you have also proven yourself wrong. Robertson clearly states "By no manner... can it be made to mean "Those who believe were appointed"." This is to say,nks for y the belief cannot be the basis of the appointment. Saving faith, according to Robertson, was exercised by those who were (past tense) appointed.

So, Robertson proves you wrong.

The Archangel

Thanks for your solid and biblically grounded posts which clarify the waters a bit.

 

[utilyan]

Matthew 12

22Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”

25And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26“If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27“If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29“Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.



So they claim any "good" Jesus does is just actually evil and has the devil for source. You still hear same line of argument today. If a Muslim or Atheist save's your child's life its chalked up as based on evil intentions. Bigotry cannot allow for another faith to do the right thing.

The case here the pharisees challenged Jesus can't do a Good act before God since he wasn't chosen/elect as the pharisees, sounds familiar?

To say God ordains evil is to say God's own kingdom is divided against itself and laid waste.