Was sin foreordained and pre-determined by God

[Robert Snow]

duplicate....

 

[Robert Snow]

Was sin foreordained and pre-determined by God?

In studying through Romans I came across this by H.A. Ironside concerning chapter 3.

Does man’s unrighteousness then but prepare the way for God to display His righteousness, and is it a necessity of the case? If so, sin is a part of the divine plan and man cannot be held accountable. But this the apostle indignantly refutes. God is just. He will judge men for their sins in righteousness. And this could not be if sin were foreordained and pre-determined. If the latter were true man might have just cause to complain: “If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” And in that case what was being slanderously reported by some as the teaching of Paul, “Let us do evil that good may come,” would be correct. But all who so plead show themselves deficient in moral principle. Their judgment is just.

What do you think?

 

[zrs6v4]

Does man’s unrighteousness then but prepare the way for God to display His righteousness, and is it a necessity of the case? If so, sin is a part of the divine plan and man cannot be held accountable. But this the apostle indignantly refutes. God is just. He will judge men for their sins in righteousness. And this could not be if sin were foreordained and pre-determined. If the latter were true man might have just cause to complain: “If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” And in that case what was being slanderously reported by some as the teaching of Paul, “Let us do evil that good may come,” would be correct. But all who so plead show themselves deficient in moral principle. Their judgment is just.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

In studying through Romans I came across this by H.A. Ironside concerning chapter 3.



What do you think?

He has it backwards.

Does man’s unrighteousness then but prepare the way for God to display His righteousness

God had planned redemption before the fall took place.

8And 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.

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.

 

[Robert Snow]

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.

These aren't my statements. They were made by Ironside in his commentary on Romans.

I do however agree with his quote completely! Why? Because it is what the bible teaches.

 

[convicted1]

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.

 

[Luke2427]

In studying through Romans I came across this by H.A. Ironside concerning chapter 3.



What do you think?

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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'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.

 

[Luke2427]

Why? Because it is what the bible teaches.

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.

 

[Ruiz]

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:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]

[1] EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

[2] JAM 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

[3] ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. MAT 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ACT 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. JOH 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. PRO 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.

[17] MAT 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. ROM 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 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. 2TI 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. JUD 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1PE 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

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:

[4] ROM 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. JOH 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

[5] ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

[6] EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved). COL 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.

[7] JOH 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. EPH 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved. 1CO 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. TIT 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

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.

 

[HankD]

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​

 

[Ruiz]

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:

While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but ato God.”

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.

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Ruiz]

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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?

 

[Ruiz]

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:

Foreordination and predestination are terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. Foreordination denotes God’s sovereign plan whereby in eternity He has already decreed all that is to happen in the entire universe, which He created. Predestination is modern terminology depicting the functions of foreordination; it defines the specifics of God’s eternal plan, i.e., God’s foreknowledge in election, the manifestation of His call (summons) and justification in time and the glorification of His elect in eternity (Romans 8:30). In Ephesians 1:5, the Greek verb "pro· o•ree· sas", rendered "foreordained", is formed from a combination of the Greek preposition "pro" meaning "before" prefixed to the word "o· ree· zo", meaning boundary or limits or restrictions. Hence, its etymological meaning conveys the idea of to limit, restrict and mark out beforehand to "in prior time design and determine" or to "ordain before hand", thus to specifically predestinate or predetermine.

 

[freeatlast]

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?

 

[Ruiz]

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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.

 

[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.

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