Overcoming

[Anthony Pritchard]

Where Faith Prevails and Determinism Fails​

From the foundation of the world, the Lamb was slain. This is not poetic hyperbole, it is divine reality. Revelation 13:8 declares, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Christ’s sacrifice was not reactive but preordained, a sovereign act of redemption that precedes time itself.

Isaiah echoes this eternal foresight: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” Isaiah 46:10. God’s omniscience is not passive observation, it is active orchestration. The table, then, is set: Christ slain, the Book of Life opened, and every soul conceived already known.

Foreknowledge Is Not Forewill

To know a thing beforehand is not to cause it. I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I do not cause it to rise. So too, God’s foreknowledge of who will believe does not mean He decreed their belief. Calvinism confuses foreknowledge with forewill, turning divine omniscience into fatalistic determinism. But Scripture never teaches that God’s knowing equals God’s forcing.

Overcoming and the Book of Life: The Prerequisite of Eternal Life

Revelation 3:5 presents both a promise and a warning: “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” Only the overcomer retains his name in the Book of Life. But Scripture does not leave us to guess who the overcomer is.

John answers plainly: “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” 1 John 5:4–5. The overcomer is not the morally superior but the spiritually reborn. To believe on Christ is to be born of God; to be born of God is to overcome. Salvation is not earned, it is received. And once received, it cannot be revoked.

The Book of Life: Written from Conception

If only the overcomer’s name remains, then whose names are blotted out? The biblical logic is both simple and beautiful: every soul conceived begins with their name written in the Book of Life. This aligns perfectly with God’s stated desire “for all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” 1 Timothy 2:.

God’s heart is not selective but sacrificial. Peter writes, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise… but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” 2 Peter 3:9. The blotting out is not God’s desire, it is man’s rejection. The Book of Life begins full; it is diminished only by unbelief.

Triply Sealed

Salvation rests on three unshakable pillars.

First, the name of the overcomer cannot be blotted out. Christ promises, “I will not blot out his name out of the book of life” Revelation 3:5. The statement is future, emphatic, and unconditional.

Second, the new man cannot sin. John writes, “He cannot sin, because he is born of God” 1 John 3:9. Death comes by sin, and the new man cannot sin; therefore, he cannot die. Paul affirms, “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God” Colossians 3:3. What is hidden in Christ cannot be lost.

Third, the believer is sealed by the Spirit. “In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession” Ephesians 1:13–14. The Spirit is not a temporary visitor; He is the down payment of eternity.

Romans 9: Misread by Calvinism, Misused by Determinism

Calvinists often cite Romans 9 as the cornerstone of unconditional election and reprobation. They point to verses like, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” Romans 9:21. And again, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?” Romans 9:22.

But the key phrase is “What if…”, a rhetorical device, not a doctrinal decree. Paul is not declaring that God arbitrarily creates some for damnation. He is posing a hypothetical to highlight God’s sovereign patience, not His deterministic cruelty.

The vessels of wrath are not described as being fitted by God. The verb is passive. It does not say “whom He fitted for destruction.” The vessels are described as already fitted, implying they became so by their own rebellion.

This aligns with Pharaoh’s story. Exodus 8:15, 8:32, and 9:34 show that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Only after repeated rejection does Scripture say, “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” God’s hardening is judicial, not arbitrary. Pharaoh rejected God first. Then God used Pharaoh’s rebellion to display His glory. This is not predestined damnation, it is divine justice responding to human defiance.

The New Man: Born of God, Not of Adam

Scripture draws a sharp line between the old man born of Adam and the new man born of God. “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” 1 John 3:9. This is not a denial of the believer’s struggle with the flesh, it is a declaration of spiritual identity. The new man, born of incorruptible seed, is incapable of sin and rebellion against God.

The new birth is not a moral improvement, it is a spiritual resurrection. “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” Ephesians 2:1. The new man is not merely forgiven; he is reborn, sealed, and sanctified.

Death Defined: Separation, Not Cessation

Death is not annihilation, it is separation. “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” James 2:26. Physical death is the spirit separated from the body. Spiritual death is the spirit separated from God.

But the new man, born of God, is never separated. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Romans 8:35. The answer is no one and nothing. Death comes by sin, and the born again new man cannot sin, therefore cannot die, cannot return to his former self, dead in sins and trespasses.

Historical Refutation: Augustine and Calvin’s Inheritance

Long before Calvin, the debate was framed as predeterminism vs free will, God alone vs God and man together. Augustine, influenced by Neoplatonism and Manichaean fatalism, introduced deterministic fatalism into the Roman Catholic Church. For a time, Rome accepted it. But ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church rejected monergism, affirming human cooperation in salvation.

The Albigensians and other early sects held scattered predestinarian views, but they were never apostolic. Calvinism is not a return to primitive Christianity, it is a system built on Augustinian determinism, not on the teachings of Christ or the apostles.

Closing Exhortation

You are not a pawn in a cosmic lottery. You are known, loved, and sealed, not by decree, but by faith. If you have overcome, your name is written, your spirit reborn, and your inheritance secured. Calvinism offers a cold certainty built on exclusion. Christ offers eternal life built on invitation.

Natus ex Deo vincit - He who is born of God overcomes.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 2024

Free to use with proper attribution.

 

[Ascetic X]

You have bravely poked a stick into a hornet’s nest with this post!

Calvinists claim that God gives commandments, then wills for them to be disobeyed, like in the garden of Eden. They make God the author of sin and every vile deed done by men.

They call this the “sovereignty” of God. But sovereignty means ruling as final authority, and does not mean causing everything that happens.

The Bible never supports such a blasphemous opinion.

Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You have bravely poked a stick into a hornet’s nest with this post!

Calvinists claim that God gives commandments, then wills for them to be disobeyed, like in the garden of Eden. They make God the author of sin and every vile deed done by men.

They call this the “sovereignty” of God. But sovereignty means ruling as final authority, and does not mean causing everything that happens.

The Bible never supports such a blasphemous opinion.

Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.

Agreed.

 

[David Lamb]

You have bravely poked a stick into a hornet’s nest with this post!

Calvinists claim that God gives commandments, then wills for them to be disobeyed, like in the garden of Eden. They make God the author of sin and every vile deed done by men.

They call this the “sovereignty” of God. But sovereignty means ruling as final authority, and does not mean causing everything that happens.

The Bible never supports such a blasphemous opinion.

Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.

I believe the Doctrines of Grace, sometimes known as Calvinism, but I do not believe God to be the Author of sin, nor do I believe that such is a Calvinist teaching. The Calvinistic "Westminster Confession of Faith" says in Paragraph III:I

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

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, also Calvinistic, says:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4

---

1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18
2 James 1:13; 1 John 1:5
3 Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11
4 Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I find these Cal vs Arm discussions totally unfruitful, often vituperative and usually unnecessary. Therefore I will make one post only on this thread.

Isaiah echoes this eternal foresight: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” Isaiah 46:10. God’s omniscience is not passive observation, it is active orchestration. The table, then, is set: Christ slain, the Book of Life opened, and every soul conceived already known.

I agree with this. God's counsel will indeed stand and He will do all His pleasure. The next verse continues, 'Calling a bird of prey from the east. the man who executes My counsel from a far country....' He is speaking of Cyrus, king of Persia here. '.... Indeed I have spoken it, I will bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.' And He did. He didn't just forsee it; He brought it to pass.

Foreknowledge Is Not Forewill

No it isn't. If God merely forsaw something happening and couldn't do anything about it, that really would be fatalism.

To know a thing beforehand is not to cause it. I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I do not cause it to rise.

No you don't. But God does; and if He decrees otherwise then that is how it will be (Joshua 10:12-13; Luke 23:44 etc.).

So too, God’s foreknowledge of who will believe does not mean He decreed their belief. Calvinism confuses foreknowledge with forewill, turning divine omniscience into fatalistic determinism. But Scripture never teaches that God’s knowing equals God’s forcing.

The Bible is very clear that God is not the author of evil and that people are not forced into sin but commit it by their own volition. This is the teaching of the great Puritan confessions as @David Lamb has pointed out in post #4. Scripture never teaches that people are forced into sin, but it does teach very clearly that sometimes people are forced into repentance and faith (e.g. Gal. 1:15-16; Titus 3:3-7). The gates of heaven are wide open and whosoever will may enter, and indeed, are urged to (Rev. 22:17). But the fact is that people will not come (John 3:19) unless God grants them a change so radical that it can only be described as a new birth (John 3:5, 7).
If you disagree with this, I hope that you never pray for your friends and family to be saved. According to you, it was all decreed in eternity and God has no power to change it. God forbid! The fact is that God is a whole lot more clever than we are (Isaiah 55:8-9).

 

[Ascetic X]

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I believe the Doctrines of Grace, sometimes known as Calvinism, but I do not believe God to be the Author of sin, nor do I believe that such is a Calvinist teaching. The Calvinistic "Westminster Confession of Faith" says in Paragraph III:I

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

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, also Calvinistic, says:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass;1 yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein;2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;3 in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree.4

---

1 Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18
2 James 1:13; 1 John 1:5
3 Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11
4 Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5

David, thank you for the quotations. I never claimed that Calvinism teaches God is the author of sin. Both the Westminster Confession and the 1689 deny that, and I acknowledge that without hesitation. My point is simply that Calvinism, especially in its higher and hyper forms, teaches that God decreed all things, including the existence of sin. I understand the decree–authorship distinction, but when every act is eternally decreed and rendered certain, the difference becomes transparent. It is a difference of mode, not result.

My argument does not rest on that tension anyway. I stand on the plain sense of Revelation 3, 1 John 5, and many other passages which show that every person begins with their name in the Book of Life. That line‑upon‑line reading affirms real responsibility, a real call to overcome, and a real danger of being blotted out. Those truths do not fit within an Augustinian decretal system.

I am not looking to debate endlessly, only to state clearly what I believe Scripture teaches.

Yours in Him,

~Tony

 

[David Lamb]

David, thank you for the quotations. I never claimed that Calvinism teaches God is the author of sin. Both the Westminster Confession and the 1689 deny that, and I acknowledge that without hesitation. My point is simply that Calvinism, especially in its higher and hyper forms, teaches that God decreed all things, including the existence of sin. I understand the decree–authorship distinction, but when every act is eternally decreed and rendered certain, the difference becomes transparent. It is a difference of mode, not result.

My argument does not rest on that tension anyway. I stand on the plain sense of Revelation 3, 1 John 5, and many other passages which show that every person begins with their name in the Book of Life. That line‑upon‑line reading affirms real responsibility, a real call to overcome, and a real danger of being blotted out. Those truths do not fit within an Augustinian decretal system.

I am not looking to debate endlessly, only to state clearly what I believe Scripture teaches.

Yours in Him,

~Tony

Thank you for making that clear Anthony. I'm glad that you don't believe that Calvinists think God is the Author of sin. Regarding the Book of Life, I don't see Revelation 3 or 1 John 5 as teaching that everybody's name is written in that Book by default, and that some get their names blotted out. Indeed, I John 5 includes this verse:

(1Jn 5:12) He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Anyway, thanks for your 8reply and explanation. Much appreciated!

 

[DaveXR650]

I find these Cal vs Arm discussions totally unfruitful, often vituperative and usually unnecessary.

I agree. But first I had to go look up "vituperative".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree. But first I had to go look up "vituperative".

Yeah! I accidentally swallowed a dictionary when I was younger.

 

[DaveXR650]

Romans 9: Misread by Calvinism, Misused by Determinism

Calvinists often cite Romans 9 as the cornerstone of unconditional election and reprobation. They point to verses like, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” Romans 9:21. And again, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?” Romans 9:22.

But the key phrase is “What if…”, a rhetorical device, not a doctrinal decree. Paul is not declaring that God arbitrarily creates some for damnation. He is posing a hypothetical to highlight God’s sovereign patience, not His deterministic cruelty.

The vessels of wrath are not described as being fitted by God. The verb is passive. It does not say “whom He fitted for destruction.” The vessels are described as already fitted, implying they became so by their own rebellion.

I agree with that, in light of the fact that Romans 9 is trying to teach the Jews that they are not automatically saved by being Jews but rather it is God who is in charge as he has shown, even down to showing more blessing to one twin instead another. But the things said about God's sovereignty in salvation I also think should be left as they are stated, lest you fall into an endless discussion of why the "opportunities" to be saved are obviously not equal to everyone and in regards to choosing Israel as his nation in the first place - it is explicitly stated that it was God's sovereign choice, period.

Jonathan Edwards has an excellent sermon on Romans 9 and I think he has a good balance of allowing God to be God and yet pointing out that God has actually condescended to us in covenant promise that in spite of his sovereignty in salvation he assures us that if we come to him he has promised to save us. In Romans 9,10,and 11 it is stated several times that those who come to God by faith can do so.

My point is that while God is sovereign in the salvation of men, and demonstrates that throughout history, he has also promised that if we come to him he will save us. Sometimes Calvinists get too exuberant with Romans 9 and seem to enjoy the idea of God sovereignly damning those he chooses, leaving the impression that God may just turn you away even if you do come to him. He has promised not to do that and as Edwards is even bold enough to say - he even binds himself with such a promise for our comfort and benefit, which we in no way deserve.

 

[DaveXR650]

To know a thing beforehand is not to cause it. I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I do not cause it to rise.

As humans, we know the sun will rise based on the odds - because we know that it has done so many times. God knows because he has made it to be so, and allows it to continue to be so or actively makes it continue to do so. Either way it can be said that God in a sense "decreed" it.

Edwards again: "Now, it is self evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, that he is either willing they should be, or not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Now, I do think Robert Picirilli has a point when he says that it is wrong to take the position that if God knows something is going to occur and does allow it that it is the same as being determined. The reason he gives is that determinists forget that what it is that God knows for sure that will happen is indeed knowledge of a truly free will choice and therefore the fact that it is now known by God to absolutely happen in what we call "the future" in no way changes the fact that even though in a sense it is now absolutely determined to be and therefore must be; the thing was indeed a true free will choice and does not cease to be so just because God infallibly knows and allows it to happen - even if it now in reality is something "decreed" to necessarily happen. And this happens to be identical to the advanced explanation of determinism used by Robert Muller in some of the more complete works on how determinism fits in with Calvinism.

If this sound like contemplating your navel you are right. I'm still at the level of trying to decide if Adam had one.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

As humans, we know the sun will rise based on the odds - because we know that it has done so many times. God knows because he has made it to be so, and allows it to continue to be so or actively makes it continue to do so. Either way it can be said that God in a sense "decreed" it.

Edwards again: "Now, it is self evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, that he is either willing they should be, or not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Now, I do think Robert Picirilli has a point when he says that it is wrong to take the position that if God knows something is going to occur and does allow it that it is the same as being determined. The reason he gives is that determinists forget that what it is that God knows for sure that will happen is indeed knowledge of a truly free will choice and therefore the fact that it is now known by God to absolutely happen in what we call "the future" in no way changes the fact that even though in a sense it is now absolutely determined to be and therefore must be; the thing was indeed a true free will choice and does not cease to be so just because God infallibly knows and allows it to happen - even if it now in reality is something "decreed" to necessarily happen. And this happens to be identical to the advanced explanation of determinism used by Robert Muller in some of the more complete works on how determinism fits in with Calvinism.

If this sound like contemplating your navel you are right. I'm still at the level of trying to decide if Adam had one.

Dave, the difficulty with Edwards’ formulation is that it collapses categories Scripture keeps distinct. Edwards assumes that if God foreknows something, He must therefore approve it, and if He approves it, He must decree it. But the Bible never makes those equivalences.

God foreknew Israel’s idolatry long before it happened (Deut 31:16), yet He explicitly says their abominations were things “which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart” (Jer 7:31; cf. Deut 12:31). Foreknowledge did not imply approval, and approval did not imply decree.

The same is true with Judas. Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray Him (John 6:64), yet He pronounced a divine woe upon the betrayer (Matt 26:24), and Peter calls Judas’s act a “transgression” (Acts 1:17–20). Again, foreknowledge does not equal causation.

Scripture is equally clear that God foreknows all human actions (Ps 139:4,16; Isa 46:10), but He does not tempt, cause, or decree sin. “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13). He is “of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Hab 1:13). And John says plainly that “all that is in the world… is not of the Father” (1 John 2:16). These are God’s own denials that sin originates in His will.

What Scripture does say is that God permits human beings to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16) and even “gives them up” to their own desires (Ps 81:12). Permission is not decree, and decree is not causation.

So the biblical pattern is consistent: God foreknows sin, forbids it, hates it, judges it, and does not cause it. Foreknowledge, approval, and decree are not interchangeable categories.

That’s why I maintain that to know a thing beforehand is not to cause it. The sunrise is a physical law God established; human sin is a moral act God forbids. Scripture never treats those as parallel.

 

[37818]

1 John 5:4, For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave, the difficulty with Edwards’ formulation is that it collapses categories Scripture keeps distinct. Edwards assumes that if God foreknows something, He must therefore approve it, and if He approves it, He must decree it. But the Bible never makes those equivalences.

No. You certainly are under no obligation to accept Edwards' belief on this, but if you are going to refute him, you are required to refute what he said. What he said was not that God must approve what was going to happen in that it was what he primarily desired that would happen. Only that he approved of it in the sense that he decided that as the supreme authority he would indeed allow it to happen. And in that sense, and in that sense alone, can it be said that he "approved" it. Now it could also mean that God allows or approves something to happen which although the primary action was against his revealed will, or harmful or even disastrous to those who were innocent or even those God loved - he allowed it and even approved it because in his wisdom he decided that overall, it was "better" in the overall existence of things, that this bad thing happen than if it had not happened.

From the foundation of the world, the Lamb was slain. This is not poetic hyperbole, it is divine reality.

This then is true. But wicked men did the deed in time and by their own free will. What they did was sinful and against God's will. Yet what they did was according to God's overall will for our sake. They were responsible for their sin and were in no way forced to do this. Yet it was God's will that they do this thing which was sinful and against God's will. Yet all the while Jesus himself knowingly moved toward this and made sure it came about, even while asking that if it be possible that he not have to do it. This is all that most Calvinist determinists assert and it's really no different than what you stated in your first post and I think we all believe this to some degree. The Bible does indeed make those connections and equivalences.

 

[Ascetic X]

No. You certainly are under no obligation to accept Edwards' belief on this, but if you are going to refute him, you are required to refute what he said. What he said was not that God must approve what was going to happen in that it was what he primarily desired that would happen. Only that he approved of it in the sense that he decided that as the supreme authority he would indeed allow it to happen. And in that sense, and in that sense alone, can it be said that he "approved" it. Now it could also mean that God allows or approves something to happen which although the primary action was against his revealed will, or harmful or even disastrous to those who were innocent or even those God loved - he allowed it and even approved it because in his wisdom he decided that overall, it was "better" in the overall existence of things, that this bad thing happen than if it had not happened.

This then is true. But wicked men did the deed in time and by their own free will. What they did was sinful and against God's will. Yet what they did was according to God's overall will for our sake. They were responsible for their sin and were in no way forced to do this. Yet it was God's will that they do this thing which was sinful and against God's will. Yet all the while Jesus himself knowingly moved toward this and made sure it came about, even while asking that if it be possible that he not have to do it. This is all that most Calvinist determinists assert and it's really no different than what you stated in your first post and I think we all believe this to some degree. The Bible does indeed make those connections and equivalences.

You go way too far when you go from “God allowed it” to “God approved it.”

God allows wicked people to die in their sins, but God does not approve of it.

God gives us the freedom to make choices, so we can be held accountable, and He can be just when He judges us.

Sin causes us to suffer, and God does not like seeing us suffer, even though we brought it on ourselves.


Isaiah 63:9

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.


Ezekiel 33:11

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?



You said

Yet it was God's will that they do this thing which was sinful and against God's will.

Contradictory. God’s will cannot be that they go against God’s will.



Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

My original post wasn’t primarily about Calvinism at all, subtitle notwithstanding. The main point I was making is that the Book of Life language in Scripture shows something very simple and very strong: names can be blotted out, which means they were there to begin with. That clearly shows that every person conceived begins with their name in that book, and the book is reduced by unbelief, not filled by a selective decree.

From that, the point about “overcoming” follows naturally. In 1 John, overcoming is the result of the new birth, not the condition of it. Eternal Security rests on the nature of the life God gives, not on human performance. That was the intended thrust of the article.

The fact that this also ends up refuting deterministic systems is incidental. It wasn’t the purpose of the piece, just a consequence of taking the biblical sequence as it stands.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

No. You certainly are under no obligation to accept Edwards' belief on this, but if you are going to refute him, you are required to refute what he said. What he said was not that God must approve what was going to happen in that it was what he primarily desired that would happen. Only that he approved of it in the sense that he decided that as the supreme authority he would indeed allow it to happen. And in that sense, and in that sense alone, can it be said that he "approved" it. Now it could also mean that God allows or approves something to happen which although the primary action was against his revealed will, or harmful or even disastrous to those who were innocent or even those God loved - he allowed it and even approved it because in his wisdom he decided that overall, it was "better" in the overall existence of things, that this bad thing happen than if it had not happened.

This then is true. But wicked men did the deed in time and by their own free will. What they did was sinful and against God's will. Yet what they did was according to God's overall will for our sake. They were responsible for their sin and were in no way forced to do this. Yet it was God's will that they do this thing which was sinful and against God's will. Yet all the while Jesus himself knowingly moved toward this and made sure it came about, even while asking that if it be possible that he not have to do it. This is all that most Calvinist determinists assert and it's really no different than what you stated in your first post and I think we all believe this to some degree. The Bible does indeed make those connections and equivalences.

Dave, I understand the distinction you’re trying to make, but this is exactly the issue I was pointing out. When “approve” is defined as “God decided it was better that this sinful act happen,” that’s no longer permission, that’s intention. Scripture never presents God as willing the sin itself, only as permitting it and overruling it.

My point wasn’t to refute determinism, but simply to keep the biblical categories clear: foreknowledge is not causation, permission is not decree, and God’s will of command is not the same as His will of providence. When those distinctions collapse, we end up saying God willed what He forbids, which Scripture never does.

 

[Ascetic X]

My original post wasn’t primarily about Calvinism at all, subtitle notwithstanding. The main point I was making is that the Book of Life language in Scripture shows something very simple and very strong: names can be blotted out, which means they were there to begin with. That clearly shows that every person conceived begins with their name in that book, and the book is reduced by unbelief, not filled by a selective decree.

From that, the point about “overcoming” follows naturally. In 1 John, overcoming is the result of the new birth, not the condition of it. Eternal Security rests on the nature of the life God gives, not on human performance. That was the intended thrust of the article.

The fact that this also ends up refuting deterministic systems is incidental. It wasn’t the purpose of the piece, just a consequence of taking the biblical sequence as it stands.

We cannot control the directions comments go when we post some thread. One idea can legitimately lead to associated ideas. But some people get angry and call it thread hijacking. If the comments go too far into a tangent, a new thread can be started.