Sovereign in all ways, at the same time, for all time?

[JesusFan]

What you seem to not fully understand or recognize is that Libertarians don't deny that God does at times throughout history intervened to effectuate His desired outcome. And that He may do so through causally determined means such as a Compatabilist might describe (i.e. the use of appointed circumstances, sinful agents, second causes and the like). But those are unique examples of God's positive agency as he actively intervenes to DO something. That is what uniquely makes the scripture "divinely inspired" after all. If God causally determines all things in like manner then what is "divine" about the inspiration of scripture? How is scripture effectuated by God any differently than other Christian books if indeed God has actively determined all things in like manner? Such a view only undermines the uniqueness of God's ACTIVE work and inspiration.

So, while Libertarians might agree that God DID actively intervene to ensure the crucifixion of his Son (through second causes as a Compatibist would describe) in order to bring about the redemption of mankind, that in no way proves or even implies He likewise actively intervenes to ensure the molestation of a five year old girl as just one example. Looking to one divine example of intervention doesn't prove universal divine intervention in all matters, otherwise what is uniquely divine about the redemption? Same goes with the other examples of "divine intervention" you have mentioned.

It is most certainly justifiable for God to actively intervene to ensure redemption (while doing so through second causes etc to ensure his holiness isn't compromised), but to PRESUME that justifies and proves that God likewise brings about every sinful deed in a similar manner is baseless and completely unbiblical. God doesn't even TEMPT men to sin, yet this Calvinistic system has God not only casually determining the tempter, but actively determining the nature of the one tempted so that when he sins he could not willingly do otherwise.

Think the BIG point in all of this discussion is that GOD either directly determines by Himself, or else through choice of others that are permitted/allowed, to be in ALL things working out His Will and plan at ALL times!

NEVER a decision made, or act performed that was outside God able to chose to intervene and have it done His pefect Will IF He so chosed!

 

[Skandelon]

-I don't believe it is unbiblical to say that God is active in every event in history

I agree, but then again that might depend on what you mean by "active." I don't think either of us would believe God is actively causing sinners to want to sin, right? This is where drawing the distinction between God's permissive and decretive will is needed.

-So are you saying that in the normal course of human activity, God is NOT DOING something?

No, I just draw a clear distinction between the 'human' and 'divine' activity, a line some seem to blur.

-So would a Libertarian say that the child molester is MORE responsible for his sin than the people who crucified Jesus?

Not at all. Those who killed Christ did so freely (contra-causually free, I mean). You must understand what we believe about God's use of judicial hardening to see why we don't believe God is culpable. Let me explain:

In my view judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth which could otherwise lead to repentance. So God is not said to have caused or inticed anyone...he simply lets them continue down their already self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to repent prior to His great purpose being served.

Suppose my 3 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking...she is about to steal a cookie and she knows she isn't supposed to.

Now, as a parent I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie...at least until the next time she was alone. However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pouce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I didn't cause it. I could have ended it my simply showing myself, but I didn't. This is like hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to sin. I'm I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it. Same is true of God in his dealings with those who crucified Jesus. He could have stepped in and prevented it, but he didn't, but that doesn't make him culpable for what they chose to do. They still are as culpable as my daughter was for stealing the cookie. Make sense?

-Also, this question makes it sound like it is easier to accept that God brought about the murder of his son than it is to accept that God brought about the molestation of a child.

That is really beside the point. We know God actively intervened to ensure the redemption of mankind because the Bible reveals it, but the point is that we don't know his involvement related to the molestation of a child. We don't see a "redemptive" purpose in such a crime as this, as we do in the crucifixion, so why presume God actively participated in any manner? Why go beyond the revelation of scripture in this sense?

Lastly, I think at the very least, if you accept an omnipotent, omniscient, good God...You have to say that, at the very least, God looked down through history and saw child molesters, Brothers who betrayed their siblings, nations that warred against each other, and a Satan who would kill Job's children...and determined for some Good purpose to go ahead and create such a world, rather than create the world in some different way in which some or all of theses sufferings would not exist.

That is a tension we all must accept in faith, is it not? That God could have done it differently and in such a way that didn't require the suffering of so many? The point is to accept the biblical revelation of what God has done, right?

I don't see how that view is any more biblical or comforting than the alternative that God has a sovereign plan for all of this suffering that will turn out for more good in the end, and more glory for himself, than some sinless other world.

I don't see my view differing from this description. I gladly and unashamedly affirm God's sovereignty in all things.

 

[12strings]

To Scandelon,

Would your agree or disagree that God is in complete control of all good and evil, without being evil himself?

I don't think either of us would believe God is actively causing sinners to want to sin, right?

-This is one thing that I am uncomfortable with, but when I read scripture, some passages seem to point there.

This is where drawing the distinction between God's permissive and decretive will is needed.

-I believe calvinist would also make a distinction between God's Decretive will and presciptive will (also called secret and revealed). God "desires that all men come to a knowledge of the truth" yet does not bring that result about.
I don't think I have the time to get into that now.

No, I just draw a clear distinction between the 'human' and 'divine' activity, a line some seem to blur.

-Are Joseph and Job bluring this line unnecessarily when they attribute the evil deeds of brothers or satan to God?

Same is true of God in his dealings with those who crucified Jesus. He could have stepped in and prevented it, but he didn't, but that doesn't make him culpable for what they chose to do.

-regarding the cookie-jar analogy, I would say that for the instance of the crucifiction, at least, God's role was somewhat more active than simply "permitting" it to happen. He clearly was guiding all of history to that point for thousands of years.

We don't see a "redemptive" purpose in such a crime as this, as we do in the crucifixion, so why presume God actively participated in any manner? Why go beyond the revelation of scripture in this sense?

-Scripture does say that "God works all things together for good for those that love him," It must mean that "all things" includes children who get molested. God must have some good end in mind when (allowing/ordaining) such actions, or he would simply stop them. We don't know what those purposes are, but have to trust that God has them.

So the main difference is whether one believes that God is causally behind these sinful actions, or simply permits them. A critic of either view could lay blame on God and say he made a mistake. Either view must trust that God uses bad things for his good purposes.

-Andy

P.S. I'm glad I got back on here. Now that I've been out of school, I felt that I needed my mind stimulated to think critically.

 

[Skandelon]

Would your agree or disagree that God is in complete control of all good and evil, without being evil himself?

In general, I would agree, but really it depends on what you mean by "control."

If I want my daughter to sit down when I ask her to sit down and she chooses not to sit down does that make me less strong? Could I not physically force her to sit thus "controlling" her? Sure I could, but if I choose not to force her physically does that make me out of control or just a parent who want his daughter to learn how to act and suffer consequences of her own free choices? Can I be "in control" and allow my daughter to freely respond at the same time? I think so, and God is much better at that than we are, so I have no doubt He can be "in control" over a world with free moral creatures.

-This is one thing that I am uncomfortable with, but when I read scripture, some passages seem to point there.

I'd have to address each of those in their context, but may I suggest you read them in light of the entire context of the biblical revelation, including James 1 in which it is clearly taught that God doesn't even tempt men to sin, much less make them want to sin.

-I believe calvinist would also make a distinction between God's Decretive will and presciptive will (also called secret and revealed).

Yes, some do, others...not so much.

-Are Joseph and Job bluring this line unnecessarily when they attribute the evil deeds of brothers or satan to God?

We are privy to the interaction with Satan and God prior to the story of Job, so we know it was Satan bringing these curses on Him, but Job stills seems to blame God. Which is correct? Could it be that from Job's perspective that God's allowing such evil is equated to his causing it, though we know better from our point of view? Sure. Revelation throughout scripture is somewhat progressive in the since that more and more of God's nature is being revealed as God makes himself known through events, teachings and scripture. Christ is that ultimate revelation and he does much to set the record straight about who God is what he desires.

-regarding the cookie-jar analogy, I would say that for the instance of the crucifiction, at least, God's role was somewhat more active than simply "permitting" it to happen. He clearly was guiding all of history to that point for thousands of years.

The analogy wasn't meant to say God only permitted all that was necessary for the crucifixion to come about...it was only regarding those things which ARE sinful, because God is holy and does not sin, nor does he tempt man to sin. This analogy showed how God could use and permit sin to occur for his purposes without being the cause of it and thus culpable for it.

-Scripture does say that "God works all things together for good for those that love him," It must mean that "all things" includes children who get molested.

I couldn't agree more. But there is a vast difference in God working out the horrible circumstances of sin to bring about a good result, and His actively intervening to originate/decree/ordain the intent of the molester. Calvinists who insist that all things originate with God, in that a created being can't originate anything (even the intent to do evil) are faced with the dilemma of defending the holiness of God and his authoring of moral evil.

So the main difference is whether one believes that God is causally behind these sinful actions, or simply permits them. A critic of either view could lay blame on God and say he made a mistake. Either view must trust that God uses bad things for his good purposes.

I agree. Well put. The difference is that one view, IMO, seems to do great injustice to the text of scripture and the holiness of God.

P.S. I'm glad I got back on here. Now that I've been out of school, I felt that I needed my mind stimulated to think critically.

It's a good discussion. You seem to be a smart and reasonable fellow! It is nice to have a discussion without the derogatory comments or personal attacks!!! :thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

To Scandelon,

Would your agree or disagree that God is in complete control of all good and evil, without being evil himself?



-This is one thing that I am uncomfortable with, but when I read scripture, some passages seem to point there.



-I believe calvinist would also make a distinction between God's Decretive will and presciptive will (also called secret and revealed). God "desires that all men come to a knowledge of the truth" yet does not bring that result about.
I don't think I have the time to get into that now.



-Are Joseph and Job bluring this line unnecessarily when they attribute the evil deeds of brothers or satan to God?



-regarding the cookie-jar analogy, I would say that for the instance of the crucifiction, at least, God's role was somewhat more active than simply "permitting" it to happen. He clearly was guiding all of history to that point for thousands of years.



-Scripture does say that "God works all things together for good for those that love him," It must mean that "all things" includes children who get molested. God must have some good end in mind when (allowing/ordaining) such actions, or he would simply stop them. We don't know what those purposes are, but have to trust that God has them.

So the main difference is whether one believes that God is causally behind these sinful actions, or simply permits them. A critic of either view could lay blame on God and say he made a mistake. Either view must trust that God uses bad things for his good purposes.

-Andy

P.S. I'm glad I got back on here. Now that I've been out of school, I felt that I needed my mind stimulated to think critically.

been reading this discussion, and find it quite interesting!

Just curious...

Who would you hold to be the cause of the falls of satan and Adam, and for the death of Christ?

 

[12strings]

This analogy showed how God could use and permit sin to occur for his purposes without being the cause of it and thus culpable for it.

Calvinists who insist that all things originate with God, in that a created being can't originate anything (even the intent to do evil) are faced with the dilemma of defending the holiness of God and his authoring of moral evil.

And from JesusFan:

Who would you hold to be the cause of the falls of satan and Adam, and for the death of Christ?

I suppose my line of questioning would go something like this:
1. Why did Satan, (and Adam and Eve Sin?
2. If you deny that God was the ultimate cause of them sinning, you would generally hold that God Gave them a free will that then chose to sin.
3. That leaves the question of what caused them to sin? You could say Satan caused Adam and Eve to sin, so we'll go back to Satan. Why did Satan's free will decide to sin?
4. Was there something about the situation (God being in charge and everything) that made him jealous and desirous to usurp God's place?
5a. If no, than how did a being who was created perfectly sinless (Lucifer) come up with the sinful desire to usurp God? Where did the desire come from? Seemingly nowhere.
5b. If yes, and God created a heavenly realm full of sinless creatures who had free will, but created that realm in such a way that he knew for certain that one or some of them would rebel, how is this situation different than saying that the creature's will was not fully free, but bound to sin because of the way God created it?

The difference is that one view, IMO, seems to do great injustice to the text of scripture and the holiness of God.

-many would say the opposite is true.

We are privy to the interaction with Satan and God prior to the story of Job, so we know it was Satan bringing these curses on Him, but Job stills seems to blame God. Which is correct? Could it be that from Job's perspective that God's allowing such evil is equated to his causing it, though we know better from our point of view? Sure. Revelation throughout scripture is somewhat progressive in the since that more and more of God's nature is being revealed as God makes himself known through events, teachings and scripture. Christ is that ultimate revelation and he does much to set the record straight about who God is what he desires.

The Bible is clear to say that after this encounter, "Job did not sin with his lips." That is, when Job attributed Satan's activity to God, he did not sin by doing so. (Now, I believe that he did sin in some of his later comments in the book, judging by God's harsh reaction to them...but there is no such harsh reaction, or even correction at this early stage of the book.)

-Andy

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=12strings;1727722]And from JesusFan:


I suppose my line of questioning would go something like this:
1. Why did Satan, (and Adam and Eve Sin?
2. If you deny that God was the ultimate cause of them sinning, you would generally hold that God Gave them a free will that then chose to sin.
3. That leaves the question of what caused them to sin? You could say Satan caused Adam and Eve to sin, so we'll go back to Satan. Why did Satan's free will decide to sin?
4. Was there something about the situation (God being in charge and everything) that made him jealous and desirous to usurp God's place?
5a. If no, than how did a being who was created perfectly sinless (Lucifer) come up with the sinful desire to usurp God? Where did the desire come from? Seemingly nowhere.
5b. If yes, and God created a heavenly realm full of sinless creatures who had free will, but created that realm in such a way that he knew for certain that one or some of them would rebel, how is this situation different than saying that the creature's will was not fully free, but bound to sin because of the way God created it?

I would say that God gave both satan and Adam "free choices" knowing already what they would do, and had already determined what His response would be to them before it actually happened!

God had jesus as the atonement for mankind before the fall evn happened in real time/space!

-many would say the opposite is true.



The Bible is clear to say that after this encounter, "Job did not sin with his lips." That is, when Job attributed Satan's activity to God, he did not sin by doing so. (Now, I believe that he did sin in some of his later comments in the book, judging by God's harsh reaction to them...but there is no such harsh reaction, or even correction at this early stage of the book.)

-Andy[/QUOTE]

Think have to remmeber that God will permit Evil to happen, allowing for bad things, its just that God cannot tempt others, not directly cause sinful acts to happen!

 

[Skandelon]

Why did Satan's free will decide to sin?

That is like asking, "What determined an undetermined choice?" Satan determined it. What causes an act? The actor. What causes a sin? The sinner. What determines a choice? The chooser.

To speculate as to what determined that actor to act, sinner to sin, or chooser to choose presumes a deterministic response is required and is just a form of question begging because it presumes the will is not contra-causually free. Understand?

-many would say the opposite is true.

I don't know many who would suggest that God is not perfectly holy and without any sin, which is what would be required if you held to the view that God originated (authored) the intent to do moral evil.

The Bible is clear to say that after this encounter, "Job did not sin with his lips." That is, when Job attributed Satan's activity to God, he did not sin by doing so. (Now, I believe that he did sin in some of his later comments in the book, judging by God's harsh reaction to them...but there is no such harsh reaction, or even correction at this early stage of the book.)

Like I said, to give some measure of acknowledgment of God's role as the one who gave ultimate permission in allowing evil to befall Job at the hands of Satan by suggesting that "it came from God" is not meant to suggest that God causes moral evil. It is only meant to suggest that God could have stopped it but chose to allow it, as is revealed in the first part of Job.

Go back to my analogy with my daughter and the cookies. After punishing her for stealing the cookie suppose she said, "Why didn't you step into the room and make me aware of your presence so that I wouldn't have stolen the cookie and gotten spanked? It's ultimately your fault I got punished."

That would be a lot like Job's response. The statement is not necessarily false, but it is short sighted because it doesn't seem to acknowledge the parents prerogative to remain hidden, and the child's responsibility to remain obedient when left alone. It only focuses upon the ability of the parent to prevent the sin and the subsequent punishment.

 

[12strings]

Well, I think we've beaten this topic to death, I'm really not trying to say that God is the author of evil. I do think there are many scriptures that put God as the ultimate cause behind why things happen. And I believe that God is holy and sinless. Despite my pushing the issue here, I am not really ready to say matter of factly that God makes people sing. Permissive will may just be the best way to speak of it, while admitting I don't fully understand how it all works together.

However, I would be interested in hearing how a libertarian view of man's free will works itself out in salvation (regarding election, response to the gospel, etc.)

-andy

 

[JesusFan]

Well, I think we've beaten this topic to death, I'm really not trying to say that God is the author of evil. I do think there are many scriptures that put God as the ultimate cause behind why things happen. And I believe that God is holy and sinless. Despite my pushing the issue here, I am not really ready to say matter of factly that God makes people sing. Permissive will may just be the best way to speak of it, while admitting I don't fully understand how it all works together.

However, I would be interested in hearing how a libertarian view of man's free will works itself out in salvation (regarding election, response to the gospel, etc.)

-andy

Thats all right!

A FAR greater mind than ANY here on the BB, Apostle Paul, marveled at the plan of God in Romans and was "speechless" Unable to comprehend or fully understand!

 

[Skandelon]

However, I would be interested in hearing how a libertarian view of man's free will works itself out in salvation (regarding election, response to the gospel, etc.)

Well, I'd be glad to discuss any aspect of that with you if you have specific questions. Meanwhile there are many good commentaries to read if your interested. Adam Clarke's commentary is a good place to start.

 

[Skandelon]

Actually, on this subject, I agree with John Calvin, who wrote,

. . . the Lord had declared that "everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good" [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

 

[quantumfaith]

Actually, on this subject, I agree with John Calvin, who wrote,

. . . the Lord had declared that "everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good" [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

Actually, on this subject, I agree with John Calvin, who wrote,

. . . the Lord had declared that "everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good" [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

Kind of amazing what even someone who tought such a 'terrible' theology would be able to discern and write about, EH?

makes you wonder what other "spiritual nuggets" he might have that our Non cal friends here could digest, Eh?

 

[Skandelon]

True. The man was a genius and a scholar...just not always right.

 

[JesusFan]

True. The man was a genius and a scholar...just not always right.

totally agree with you, as he was a "gifted' teacher and expositor of the Word, yet was not "Inspired" as the Apostles were by God!