The Tree and Garden

[Brother Bob]

Yes. Because Adam was subject to vanity (to use your words), God's permission of Adam's sin meant that Adam would certainly sin. The only thing that would stop Adam from sinning would be God preventing it, and God chose not to prevent it.


I don't think God ever prevents repentance, so I'm not sure what you are asking here.

I don't believe God ever prevents repentance either, but Calvinist believe only that God changes the heart of the pre-chosen, so they can repent, and allows the rest to go to destruction, but God has commanded every man everywhere to repent. So, it seems most on here are saying God allows sin, and some are going so far as to say, He is the author of it and still remain Sovereign. If that be so, then why can't God allow men to repent, and still be Sovereign???

I believe that God allows whosoever that believes to repent, which is much better doctrine than, God is the author of sin. IMO

BBob,

 

[reformedbeliever]

IOW - there isn't any choice given to man by God in which God does not already know the outcome of that choice made via the volition of man.

This is what it comes down to. God's perfect knowledge. If God knows what man will do, and this knowledge is not prescience or foresight, because if it was then God would have had to learn what man would do (unbiblical), then could man have chosen any differently than what God's perfect knowledge (not foresight) says he will choose?

This is God's decrees, that His perfect knowledge will result in men acting according to His predetermined plan. God does this without being the cause of sin or even the cause of temptation... because His Word tell us so.

Either God has nothing to learn from man, or He is absolutely sovereign over men's choices.... or God is not all knowing, and is learning.

I say His perfect knowledge are His decrees, without Him having to learn what men will do. He is the first cause, for His glory. He is completely sovereign. He is God!

 

[npetreley]

I guess my question is this, how does my belief that God actually gave Adam a real choice--through a mechanism of His omnipotence that I cannot comprehend fully (and thus cannot explain fully)--how does that restrict God from a calvinistic viewpoint to the degree that a calvinist thinks the non-calvinist has denied God's sovereignty?

First, thank you for your kind words!

I'm afraid I don't understand your question, though. Could you try again with a rephrase or something? Sorry if I'm being dense.

 

[reformedbeliever]

This is a new "omni" for me. Omnisapience

The wisdom of God is sometimes referred to as his omnisapience, just as omniscience means all-knowing, omnisapience means all-wise, etc. By his omniscience, God perfectly knows all possibilities and what would happen if they came to pass. By his omnisapience, his wisdom is perfect so that he knows which course of action is the best (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33; Ephesians 1:11-12; 3:10). The wisdom of God is the practical side of God's knowledge, applying knowledge to achieve His desires in ways that will glorify Him the most.

I don't know that I couldn't agree with that!

 

[reformedbeliever]

First, thank you for your kind words!

I'm afraid I don't understand your question, though. Could you try again with a rephrase or something? Sorry if I'm being dense.

He did give Adam a real choice. Adam's choices came from a set of variables that God in His providence put in place. These variables guaranteed that Adam would choose in a manner that is consistent with God's decreed or perfect will.
Hope this helps.

Oops...... wrong quote npet... sorry. I meant to quote Hopeful.... somehow I messed that up.

 

[reformedbeliever]

npet, if I compliment you first :wavey: , will you please not hit me with your scathing humor quite so hard? :tonofbricks: I enjoy reading your posts (especially the scathingly humorous ones :laugh: ), and have found yours and Amy G's posts on this subject the easiest for me to follow and learn from.

So, that was the compliment, here's the comment/question: I believe that God has the "right" to do whatever He wants--and I think that is exactly what scripture teaches. So we agree on that. And the more I wrestle with these concepts, the more it's fully crystallizing what the calvinistic position is...and I'm apparently in complete accord with this aspect of calvinism. In the sense that God created everything, including imperfect man, He also created all the circumstances that made Gog the bad guy AND allowed God to judge him for BEING the bad guy. I "get" that. He created Adam, put that tree in the garden, told him not to eat from it, KNEW he WOULD eat from it, etc....so, in the sense that God created that entire scenario, YES, God, in His magnificent sovereignty also created the "whatever" (I'm not being flippant--I don't KNOW what term to use) that allowed sin. In that sense He IS the "author" of sin. Again, I "get" it (or at least I THINK I do!).

I guess my question is this, how does my belief that God actually gave Adam a real choice--through a mechanism of His omnipotence that I cannot comprehend fully (and thus cannot explain fully)--how does that restrict God from a calvinistic viewpoint to the degree that a calvinist thinks the non-calvinist has denied God's sovereignty?

He did give Adam a real choice. Adam's choices came from a set of variables that God in His providence put in place. These variables guaranteed that Adam would choose in a manner that is consistent with God's decreed or perfect will.
Hope this helps.

 

[webdog]

These variables guaranteed that Adam would choose in a manner that is consistent with God's decreed or perfect will.

I disagree (you shocked :laugh. It was consistent with God's permissive will...not declarative will. If it was His declarative will, then He caused Adam to sin.

 

[Aaron]

Hadn't had an opportunity to read the entire thread, so forgive me if the point I make has already been expressed.

One thing is certain from the narrative, that the flesh cannot maintain life or keep covenant with God.

 

[Hopeful]

First, thank you for your kind words!

I'm afraid I don't understand your question, though. Could you try again with a rephrase or something? Sorry if I'm being dense.

Sorry, I know I didn't express that question well. That seems to be the problem--putting into words exactly what's going through my head on this. Apparently my mind is grasping it better than my words can utter. :laugh:

But I think reformedbeliever answered the question satisfactorily, assuming that is the "general" calvinistic position on this issue. I think, npet, that you're the one who said you came to the beliefs you hold before knowing the term "calvinism", so I don't intend to "label" you, I'm just trying to keep this all straight as I'm contemplating it.

Because, honestly, the only thing that "bothers" me about these C/A debates is the "tone" they can take sometimes. I have been challenged to really think and pray about many issues I've seen discussed (or argued heatedly :laugh: ) here on the BB. And anything that makes us turn to God's Word even more is obviously being used for "God's good purpose" BY God FOR His glory. How's that for application of the subject at hand? :saint:

 

[Hopeful]

He did give Adam a real choice. Adam's choices came from a set of variables that God in His providence put in place. These variables guaranteed that Adam would choose in a manner that is consistent with God's decreed or perfect will.
Hope this helps.

Thanks for your post. It DOES help!

 

[Hopeful]

I disagree (you shocked :laugh. It was consistent with God's permissive will...not declarative will. If it was His declarative will, then He caused Adam to sin.

Is THIS what the issue boils down to then? Calvinism with an assertion of "declarative will" and non-calvinistic folks asserting "permissive will"?

Because I believe God truly grants "permissive will", and that doesn't restrict Him in any way, nor does it require Him to "learn" what man will choose because His omniscience is not confined by this--through a mechanism that my finiteness cannot explain.

HOWEVER, I also see why the calvinistic assertion would state that it is a declarative will, since God created every single aspect of this entire equation, including each little letter I'm typing here.

So, what does that make ME--other than utterly confused??? :laugh:

 

[Hopeful]

This is a new "omni" for me. Omnisapience

The wisdom of God is sometimes referred to as his omnisapience, just as omniscience means all-knowing, omnisapience means all-wise, etc. By his omniscience, God perfectly knows all possibilities and what would happen if they came to pass. By his omnisapience, his wisdom is perfect so that he knows which course of action is the best (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33; Ephesians 1:11-12; 3:10). The wisdom of God is the practical side of God's knowledge, applying knowledge to achieve His desires in ways that will glorify Him the most.

I don't know that I couldn't agree with that!

Perhaps this is it! Eureka! Omnisapience--a new word to learn that applies here so that my mind can wrap around the concept better! Thanks!

(Edited to say, sorry for the triple post, but I'm on my lunch hour and have to hurry!)

 

[webdog]

Is THIS what the issue boils down to then? Calvinism with an assertion of "declarative will" and non-calvinistic folks asserting "permissive will"?

Because I believe God truly grants "permissive will", and that doesn't restrict Him in any way, nor does it require Him to "learn" what man will choose because His omniscience is not confined by this--through a mechanism that my finiteness cannot explain.

HOWEVER, I also see why the calvinistic assertion would state that it is a declarative will, since God created every single aspect of this entire equation, including each little letter I'm typing here.

So, what does that make ME--other than utterly confused??? :laugh:

It makes you honest...and I can appreciate that. The main difference, IMO, is that I believe part of God's declarative will is His permissive will. He declares that man can make real choices, hence permitting disobedience as well as obedience. I don't see calvinism allowing for that, because they contend if God permits man to make a decision, man is sovereign over God, which is...as the great rbell says..."pish tosh".

If God's declarative will was that Adam ate of the tree...He caused it.

If God's permissive will was that Adam could eat of the tree (and also not eat of the tree)...He allowed it. Which view aligns with Scripture?

 

[russell55]

I'm just now reading back through this thread to catch up. Can you clarify for me?--I thought the Calvinist says that God didn't prevent sin because He wanted to redeem the ELECT.
Thanks.

Yes, and the elect are human. God redeems humankind by redeeming his people, the church, all believers, the elect, or whatever label you want to use for them.

 

[Hopeful]

It makes you honest...and I can appreciate that. The main difference, IMO, is that I believe part of God's declarative will is His permissive will. He declares that man can make real choices, hence permitting disobedience as well as obedience. I don't see calvinism allowing for that, because they contend if God permits man to make a decision, man is sovereign over God, which is...as the great rbell says..."pish tosh".

If God's declarative will was that Adam ate of the tree...He caused it.

If God's permissive will was that Adam could eat of the tree (and also not eat of the tree)...He allowed it. Which view aligns with Scripture?

webdog, this is actually what I believe as well--the "He allowed it" part, and I definitely do NOT think man is sovereign over God. But I'm trying to understand why the calvinistic viewpoint believes that I believe that.

 

[Hopeful]

Yes, and the elect are human. God redeems humankind by redeeming his people, the church, all believers, the elect, or whatever label you want to use for them.

Okay, I'm clearer on the sovereignty issue than I was....election will have to wait for another thread...and later... Got to get back to work!Thanks for your responses!

 

[russell55]

I don't believe God ever prevents repentance either, but Calvinist believe only that God changes the heart of the pre-chosen, so they can repent,

I'm going to quibble a little bit with the wording here, not so much because it's wrong, but I think it might lead to confusion. The word "can" here is confusing because not everyone realizes that the can't of repentence has nothing to do with God not allowing people to repent, but rather, it has to do with the nature of people since the fall. They are rebellious against God and it is their own rebelliousness that makes them unable to repent. So the can't stems from their own unwillingness.

So God never prevents anyone from repenting, but people's own rebelliousness keeps them from repenting unless God changes their hearts to make them willing to repent.

If that be so, then why can't God allow men to repent, and still be Sovereign???

There is no contradiction between God not preventing anyone from repenting and God remaining sovereign. That's not the issue. The issue is that given humankind's condition, God's bare permission is not enough to cause anyone to repent.

I believe that God allows whosoever that believes to repent, which is much better doctrine than, God is the author of sin. IMO

I'd be willing to bet that everyone, on both sides of this issue, believes that God allows whosoever that believes to repent. The question is this: Is God's bare permission enough? Does anyone at all believe because of God's permission alone?

 

[npetreley]

Is THIS what the issue boils down to then? Calvinism with an assertion of "declarative will" and non-calvinistic folks asserting "permissive will"?

Because I believe God truly grants "permissive will", and that doesn't restrict Him in any way, nor does it require Him to "learn" what man will choose because His omniscience is not confined by this--through a mechanism that my finiteness cannot explain.

HOWEVER, I also see why the calvinistic assertion would state that it is a declarative will, since God created every single aspect of this entire equation, including each little letter I'm typing here.

So, what does that make ME--other than utterly confused??? :laugh:

Things like permissive will and decretive will are just human attempts to understand how God works.

I think many Calvinists and non-Cals alike tend to want to distance God from sin by speculating on varying degrees of "permissive" will. They may "declare" (as if they know what God is thinking) that God never intended sin, but tolerated it. Or, taken to a greater extreme, they may "declare" that God did not anticipate sin (open theism) but reacted to it by providing redemption. And so on. This makes the person feel better, but I suspect it is denying reality. Regardless, the biggest problem with this kind of speculation is that it often stems not from what scripture says, but from that person's fear of tainting their personal image of God if they stray too far from "permissive" and start moving into "decretive".

The bottom line is that we can guess that God permitted this and decreed that, but when it comes down to it, God is the ultimate cause of everything. To say that sin entered creation against God's will is to say God is not clever enough, or powerful enough, or all-knowing enough, or <insert trait here> enough to have prevented it. He's God. If God never wanted sin to enter the creation, then it never would have happened.

Edit: Fixed declarative, decretive, etc.
.

 

[reformedbeliever]

It makes you honest...and I can appreciate that. The main difference, IMO, is that I believe part of God's declarative will is His permissive will. He declares that man can make real choices, hence permitting disobedience as well as obedience. I don't see calvinism allowing for that, because they contend if God permits man to make a decision, man is sovereign over God, which is...as the great rbell says..."pish tosh".

If God's declarative will was that Adam ate of the tree...He caused it.

If God's permissive will was that Adam could eat of the tree (and also not eat of the tree)...He allowed it. Which view aligns with Scripture?

The one that says God did not have to learn what man will do in order for Him to *know* it.

 

[russell55]

Is THIS what the issue boils down to then? Calvinism with an assertion of "declarative will" and non-calvinistic folks asserting "permissive will"?

Not really. God's declarative will is all the moral principles and commands given to us in scripture. It's the will of God that he communicates (declares) to us on the pages of scripture. Everyone, on both sides of this issue believes God has a declarative will and they'd be pretty much in agreement on what his declarative will consists of, so I don't think the discussion here involves God's declarative will at all.

I think, perhaps, webdog was thinking decretive will when he wrote declarative will. The decretive will of God is his plan for creation history—what he determined would come to pass in history before he created it. God's decretive will includes both the things that come into existance by means of God's permission (his permissive will) and those things that come into existence by means of his direct action.