Overcoming

[Anthony Pritchard]

Stop and think for a minute about how this thread started and what was said in the first post.

Was it God's will that the Lamb was slain? Then he "approved" it I assume.
Now, if the Lamb was slain it was necessary that Adam sin. Is that going too far? Yet was it God's will that Adam sin? What Calvinists say is that it was a necessity and therefore "decreed" that Adam sin - yet, it was Adam's free choice to sin and it was a violation of God's will.

So I would answer you that if God is all powerful and all knowing, and it is a fact that he allows people to die in their sins - then it must be true that there is a sense in which he approves that happening. Now, I would agree with you if you say that some Calvinists go too far in that they seem to think that God is equally happy that this happens as he is when men come in faith and repentance. I believe that God really does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked and is unhappy when they spurn his grace. But in his wisdom and sovereignty he has set limits and exercises his sovereignty in the salvation of men and we are warned not to question this. But we all have the consolation of an invitation to come to him with his promise that he will receive us if we do and therefore the exercise of his sovereignty in salvation, though real, does not involve refusing anyone who comes by faith. I don't think that is a bad deal and I don't think it falls short of any non-Calvinist "offer".

Dave, I appreciate your reply, but the issue here is not whether God foreknew the crucifixion or permitted it. The issue is the category shift that happens when “allow” becomes “approve,” and then “approve” becomes “decree.” That is the very collapse of categories I was pointing out.

Scripture distinguishes between what God wills, what God permits, and what God overrules. The crucifixion fits all three categories without collapsing them. God foreknew it. God permitted it. God overruled it for redemption. But Scripture never says God willed the sin itself. The wicked act was theirs, not His. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). The counsel and foreknowledge were God’s. The wicked hands were theirs. The text keeps the categories distinct.

Your argument assumes that if God permits something necessary to His plan, He must therefore approve the sinful act itself. But that is the very point in dispute. Permission is not approval, and approval is not decree. God can permit what He hates in order to accomplish what He loves. That is providence, not determinism.

You also say that if God allows people to die in their sins, “there is a sense in which He approves that happening.” But Scripture says the opposite. “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11). God permits it. He does not approve it. He takes no pleasure in it. He calls all men everywhere to repent. The distinction matters.

As for Adam’s sin, Scripture never says it was decreed. It says Adam was commanded not to eat, that he disobeyed, and that death entered by his transgression. The necessity of redemption does not imply the decree of sin. God’s foreknowledge of the remedy does not mean He authored the disease.

My point remains simple. God foreknows. God permits. God overrules. But Scripture never attributes the sinful act itself to God’s will. When those categories collapse, we end up saying God willed what He forbids and approved what He condemns. That is not the language of Scripture.

Respectfully,

Tony

 

[Ascetic X]

Stop and think for a minute about how this thread started and what was said in the first post.

Was it God's will that the Lamb was slain? Then he "approved" it I assume.
Now, if the Lamb was slain it was necessary that Adam sin. Is that going too far? Yet was it God's will that Adam sin? What Calvinists say is that it was a necessity and therefore "decreed" that Adam sin - yet, it was Adam's free choice to sin and it was a violation of God's will.

So I would answer you that if God is all powerful and all knowing, and it is a fact that he allows people to die in their sins - then it must be true that there is a sense in which he approves that happening. Now, I would agree with you if you say that some Calvinists go too far in that they seem to think that God is equally happy that this happens as he is when men come in faith and repentance. I believe that God really does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked and is unhappy when they spurn his grace. But in his wisdom and sovereignty he has set limits and exercises his sovereignty in the salvation of men and we are warned not to question this. But we all have the consolation of an invitation to come to him with his promise that he will receive us if we do and therefore the exercise of his sovereignty in salvation, though real, does not involve refusing anyone who comes by faith. I don't think that is a bad deal and I don't think it falls short of any non-Calvinist "offer".

Calvinists portray God as the author of sin.

The Bible says God hates sin.

God cannot contradict Himself by giving a command, then willing His command to be violated.

God did not approve of Adam sinning, nor did God cause it to happen.

Satan must love hearing Calvinists accuse God of willing sin to happen.


I Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion…

 

[DaveXR650]

The issue is the category shift that happens when “allow” becomes “approve,” and then “approve” becomes “decree.” That is the very collapse of categories I was pointing out.

It is important that you understand this if you want to understand determinism as Calvinists use it. We all believe I think that God knows about everything that men are going to do before they do it. We also believe that God could, as in having the ability, stop men from doing anything, at any time. The assumption I am making then is the same as Edwards, in that therefore, if something happens, good or evil, God knowing beforehand that it was the intention of men to do so, allowed it to happen if indeed it happened. And in that sense he "approved" of what was done. Not that he likes what was done, but just that in his wisdom he wills permissively that it be allowed to happen and thus fit in to his larger plans. Knowing that, the rest of that post I would agree with.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinists portray God as the author of sin.

The Bible says God hates sin.

God cannot contradict Himself by giving a command, then willing His command to be violated.

God did not approve of Adam sinning, nor did God cause it to happen.

Satan must love hearing Calvinists accuse God of willing sin to happen.


I Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion…

You are misinformed. I know of only one Calvinist who says that God is the author of sin and he although still writing, is of very minor importance. I think his name is Cheung but I don't remember for sure and don't wish to slander him by mistake if that is not the case.
You show by this post at best a complete ignorance of what Calvinism is and at worst a mean spirited divisiveness that could be harmful to a local assembly. I have seen it, believe me. Listen and you might learn something.

 

[Ascetic X]

It is important that you understand this if you want to understand determinism as Calvinists use it. We all believe I think that God knows about everything that men are going to do before they do it. We also believe that God could, as in having the ability, stop men from doing anything, at any time. The assumption I am making then is the same as Edwards, in that therefore, if something happens, good or evil, God knowing beforehand that it was the intention of men to do so, allowed it to happen if indeed it happened. And in that sense he "approved" of what was done. Not that he likes what was done, but just that in his wisdom he wills permissively that it be allowed to happen and thus fit in to his larger plans. Knowing that, the rest of that post I would agree with.

No, God will not violate freedom of choice to stop a person from doing something sinful.

Allowing is absolutely not approving.

Approve means to officially agree to, accept, and speak favorably of something. It indicates that an action, plan, or idea has been judged as pleasing and satisfactory. Approving means it has received formal permission, sanction, validation, and authorization.

God cannot approve of something, then punish the person who did it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I don't think that is a mainstream way of looking at this. I don't know enough about theology to know if that is true, or how much of an error it is, or isn't. I would caution against basing a theology on a logical assumption for instance that if a name can be blotted out it means all names had to already be there in the first place. I have found that theological truths are usually repeated multiple times in the Bible, in many different ways, and from many different angles. I would not camp on something like that above, except as a topic of friendly conversation, which is fine. And you seem to be a nice guy.

Dave, thank you for the kind tone. I am not basing anything on a logical assumption. I am simply taking the wording of Scripture at face value. The text says names can be blotted out. The only way a name can be blotted out is if it was there. That is not a system or a deduction. It is the plain meaning of the words.

I agree that doctrine should be established by repeated testimony, and that is exactly why I hold this view. The Bible consistently presents the Book of Life as something from which names are removed, not something to which names are selectively added. Exodus 32:33 says, “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” Revelation 3:5 says, “I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.” Revelation 22:19 speaks of God taking away a man’s part out of the book of life. Every reference is in the direction of removal, not pre‑creation exclusion.

So I am not camping on a single verse. I am letting all the verses speak in the same direction. The Book of Life begins full and is diminished by unbelief. That is the consistent pattern.

As for whether this is mainstream, that does not carry much weight with me. My concern is simply what the text says. If Scripture says names can be blotted out, then names were there. If Scripture shows removal, not selective addition, then that is the pattern I follow. My aim is not to build a system but to stay with the words as written.

Respectfully,

Tony

 

[DaveXR650]

No, God will not violate freedom of choice to stop a person from doing something sinful.

He could do that and I think sometimes does. Joseph found favor with an unrighteous ruler and also with an unrighteous jailer. But outside of that God frequently in scripture also used circumstances and/or physically prevented evil acts like when David was prevented from killing everyone in Abigail's household. But God certainly does let a person attempt something sinful and that is mostly what our problem is - our free will is intact and has such tendencies.

Allowing is absolutely not approving.

Approve means to officially agree to, accept, and speak favorably of something. It indicates that an action, plan, or idea has been judged as pleasing and satisfactory. Approving means it has received formal permission, sanction, validation, and authorization.

God cannot approve of something, then punish the person who did it.

Here we just disagree. By "approve" I mean that God allows the evil act to happen because he is going to have it fit into his larger plan - which was indeed his plan all along. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery which was their plan, their sin. God considered it sin and did not approve of the sin. But he did approve of the action in that it was his way of getting Joseph in the position where he would later literally save Israel. This is not some kind of odd proposition I'm making. I would think all Christians would already know these things. If you just don't like the use of the word "approve" then feel free to jettison it and that would be fine with me. I have tried to explain things using that term so that it might be helpful in understanding the very difficult concepts of evil existing, God allowing it, and yet accomplishing his plans, while still leaving human free will intact. Use whatever terms help you understand these things with my blessings.