Was sin foreordained and pre-determined by God

This is being discussed in another thread right now started by skandelon.


You said if sin was predetermined then men could not be held accountible for their sin, why? I disagree but would like to hear your reasoning.


Reminds me of the argument, since evil is present then a good God cant be.


The same logic is used for both arguments.


Just for the record i believe that God foreordains everything and your final statements remind me of Pauls defence in Romans 9 for how God is still just if He raises men for disobedience, they cant say a thing about it.

 

He has it backwards.

God had planned redemption before the fall took place.

This desciption of our Lord as mediator before the world was..indicates God had determined to allow the fall,but also had the solution perfectly planned out...God does not need to learn what man would do...and react...he knows exactly what will happen because he has ordained it.

 

It depends on how one defines the word "ordain" in regards to sin. If God allowed it to happen, and wasn't the One who placed sin in Lucifer to cause him and his minions to rebel against Him, then I can agree with the use of that word this way.

The "Absoluters" hold that God decreed sin in that He was the driving force behind Lucifer doing what he did, if I am thinking correctly. IOW, Lucifer had no other choice than to rebel against God. Correct me if I am wrong, fellas. I do not want to misrepresent anyone on here. This is something I can not agree with.

 

I'll be the second to ask you:

You said if sin was predetermined then men could not be held accountible for their sin, why? I disagree but would like to hear your reasoning.

 

I've never seen any Calvinist on here argue that. That there have been some Calvinists in history who have thought that may be. There have been hundreds of millions of us and we span a great swath of history- so the chances that a handful of us believed that are possible, I suppose.

 

Frankly, David Koresh would give the same answer. It is meaningless.

EVERYBODY (who claims to be a Christian) says what they believe is what the Bible teaches. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rob Bell, Joel Osteen, United Pentecostals.

But if you can't show your hermeneutic that you employed to understand the Scripture to teach that- then you waste our time and deceive yourself into thinking what you believe is reliable.

 

The problem with discussions is that they often begin with two irrational assumptions. First, is an irrational assumption of what we (Predestinarians) believe and the second is an irrational assumption of what free-will means.

First, what we actually believe. In this regards, we should define it historically, not according to redefinings by those who oppose the doctrine. Here is what the WCF says:

The major issues here is that God is without sin, as God in His infinite wisdom predestined Christ to be crucified and this crucifixion caused God to anointed even Pilate to do whatever God's hand or plan had predestined to take place. Yet, we believe it was done so God is without sin. If we are to believe both that God predestined even Pilate and the crucifixion (God ordained both the ends and the means), then we believe God can truly cause things to happen where evil acts evil but God is still not evil.

Those who wish to attribute sin to God, are adding to the text of the Bible a concept that is not present. However, those of us who say God is Sovereign even with Pilate's sin, have a clear text of Scripture in our support.

Secondly, the addition of libertine free will is inserted into the text and this is unBiblical. Some believe that unless a non-Christian has libertine free will then God is unjust. This teaching is not found in Scripture but is a philosophical attack. As well, this is really an attack on the Gospel. The Gospel rescues the slave and captive from her bondage and give her new life. To say that a non-Christian has libertine free will, you must say that we are not in complete captivity and bondage. Without the Gospel we are utterly bound to sin. If we are libertines free will believers, we must believe we control our destiny and we are the masters of our own life, and that true bondage to sin is not a reality.

Here are some verses to support the idea that we do not have libertine free will as non-Christians:

Our complete free will is not mentioned in Scripture. Rather, our bondage to sin is the greatest illustration of our condition. Some wish to make our bondage to sin separate from our will, but this bondage is all encompassing to our mind, heart, soul, and strength. In fact, the verses above mentions the will.

So, what is free will? Do I deny it? Yet, I do not hold to a libertine free-will, a free-will totally independent of our nature and of God. To hold to a libertine free will is to hold that God is subject to our whims and pleasures. Rather, I believe that I am subject to God's eternal purpose and decrees.

 

The scripture indicates that Ananias had "free will":

Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

HankD​

 

I think there is an assumption that is built upon a poor translation of the text and based upon a poor understanding of our position.

First, the poor translation of the text. The ESV states:

Secondly, this may be because of the poor understanding of our position. The verses I noted pulls open the curtains of God's glorious purposes so we can see into his great and majestic workings. However, there is nothing wrong with calling people to repent, saying they could turn from their wicked ways, or the like. We are to call people to repentance, that is our commission. However, we are also to understand that their problem is not that they are free to choose, but they are bound to their evil nature.

Thus, only the Gospel can free them from this bondage.

 

Hi Ruiz,

The determing word is "power":

was it not in thine own power?

The word is exousia.

Friberg:Authority, right, power.

UBS:Authority,right, liberty, ability.

Louw-Nida:Authority to rule

Lidell-Scott:Power or authority to do a thing.


Peter reprimands Ananias for making the wrong decision, telling him he could have done differently but now he must face the consequence for a wrong action over which he had power to do or not to do...

I don't see any other way to intepret this passage.

Do you see it differently in light of the meaning of the word exousia - "authority"?

e.g. It was the only choice he could make, but then why did Peter reprimand him?

Thanks
HankD

 

As noted, the word itself is not espousing libertine freewill. Rather, it was merely noting his authority over his own property. That is why the ESV chose "disposal." Yes, he had the right to do with the property/money whatever he willed. The emphasis of the ESV and NASB is relating to the property being under his control. Even the NIV notes it was the money at his disposal.

This is not an attack of what we are discussing for several reasons. As well, it is not an advancement of Libertine Free-Will.

Why is this not an attack on our belief?

1. Calvinists recognize that men does have rule and authority. However, they do not act outside of the Sovereignty of God. This is a great mystery, but is a fact of our belief.

2. Man is still responsible for his actions. We do not deny responsibility, we advance responsibility. However, we will reject the idea that Jesus' death was a mere chance and that Pilate could have chosen a less severe punishment for Jesus. Why? God is Sovereign. We are responsible and have complete dominion in our world, but we are completely under God's Sovereignty.

3. Because God is Sovereign does not shift the blame from man to God. Rather, God is completely good and man is wholly evil.

So, do I recognize a rule and authority of man over his materials and body? Yes. Yet, that does not equate universal free will. Rather, the proof that God predestined even Pilate and the Jews to kill Jesus shows that God is intimately involved in the affairs of people, but without sin.

 

An interesting discussion. Can someone, perhaps several, give some understanding to the terms foreordained and pre-determined as they seem to mean something different then I understand them?

 

This is a great question and you are right. I think we can even go further into this discussion with a definition of more than just those words.

This statement is in the Westminster

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death"

Notice that the WCF uses two different words, "predestined" for the elect and "foreordained" for those unto death.

Now, before we go further, let me note that not all reformed believers hold to a major distinction between these words, I don't think we can make a great argument for their distinctions. I normally do not.

I read this on a website and I thought this was well written:

 

Thank you for taking the time you took, but I am still left with a not so clear understanding, sorry but when the word in question is answered with the word in question it leaves me still asking the question.

However based on the quote you gave from the WCF I assume it is saying that they mean that God in eternity past decided each and every sin every person will sin, and at a certain time, on a certain date, and that would include every person and every sin and every action, sin or not sin, in all eternity, correct?

 

You are getting into an area that is not clear in Scripture, thus impossible to answer with precision. Let me admit something, there is much to this doctrine that is a mystery, much that I cannot fully answer because God did not fully answer. I can only go as far as it is explained in the Bible.

How we have tried to rectify this philosophically is to say the following:

1. God is Sovereign over everything (including Pilate's death sentence on Jesus.)

2. God is not the author of sin has he ever committed sin..

3. Man is a slave to sin, utter sinful if left to himself.

4. Man's sinfulness is not outside of God's Sovereignty.

5. Man is fully responsible for his sin, but this sin is completely within God's Sovereignty.

6. Therefore, all that God ordained will come to pass and sin is withing his plan, but how he planned this and what role is a mystery. Yet, it is not outside of His plan nor can it thwart God's plan. However, all aspects of our knowledge cannot fully understand how God ordained this will come to pass.

 

This is why I hold to both sides. God's Sovereignity and free will as the bible teaches both.

 

Hi Ruiz,

Nonetheless Peter does seem to indicate that Ananias had a real choice but made the wrong one and must now pay the consequence.

Clearly a tension passage.

That this is a mystery to us is something everyone can agree upon (I think).

However I don't know of any believer of any flavor that believes "Jesus' death was a mere chance" happenstance.

This issue is IMO more of one of human perception and how to relieve this seeming tension between God's sovereignty and man's apparent free will.

Personally I believe the real answer has to do with the fact that God is eternal, without beginning which we cannot relate to as we are without a point of reference here in this time continuum.

HankD