I believe others have attempted to explain the difference between God's decree and God allowing things to come to pass (both good and evil).
Actually, Archangel said there was a difference between "decree" and "ordain" and he defined it as you have here: "allowing things to come to pass." But when I asked for clarity about this Jarthur replied and said that, "Holy Spirit moves on believers. Bynyan was moved to write PP."
I had asked, "...wouldn't it be fair to say that all good things come from God? Didn't God bring the story of Pilgrim's Progress to Bunyan, or do you think he came up with it himself? See, I'm trying to get to the distinction between what Paul wrote in the NT and what Bunyan wrote. Assuming both are true and good then aren't both OF GOD? How can one be more "of God" than something else, or more "true" than something else?"
Both are not revelation. To the extent that a "good" book reflects the truth found in God's revelation (scripture) then it is truth... but it is not revelation
.
You all keep using terms with any definition. To me truth is revelation. How does a truth not reveal and how is a revelation of God not true? In other words, how are they different?
Do you believe that God merely allowed Bunyan to write the Pilgrims Progress, or do you believe like JArthur that the Holy Spirit moved on him to write it?
Well, then you and I may not have a disagreement on this point. Some Calvinists seem to argue that God decrees all things in such a way that they could not have been otherwise. In other words, they would teach that Bunyan could not have not written PP because God casually determined that he would.
Perhaps you can explain how God "sovereignly and effectually" brought about the writing of scripture without violating man's free-will
I don't believe that he did. I believe His will trumped man's will in this regard thus making the writing of scripture divine and authoritative. Like the story of Jonah. God effectually sent Jonah to Nineveh. God's will trumped Jonah's will in regard to getting His Word to the people. That is what made that event sacred and special. If God effectually caused every person to do everything they end up doing (as some argue) then what is the uniqueness of such accounts? The uniqueness of God's interventions in cases like the inspiration of scripture is the very thing that gives those events authority and a divine quality. It separates them as being "of God" and not "of Man."
then apply your thinking to God bringing someone to salvation without violating free-will...and you'll be a little closer to accurately understanding reformed theology.
Hopefully my explanation will help you understand non-reformed theology a little better.
Several people have explained the distinction. You keep attempting to define "my system" in a way that is contrary to the way I define "my system". Sorry, I would will stick to my definitions whether you agree or not.
As I pointed out, I don't see where you defined certain terms in a way that points out a clear distinction.
BTW, Romans 8:28 says "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose...."
How does that verse work out in your "system"?
God works to bring about his ultimate purpose and plan in the world despite the sin and evil acts of man. He does not "casually determine" or "decree" all acts (including sinful ones) as many Calvinistic scholars argue.
It's the difference between "revelation" and "illumination"Though Holy Spirit is involved in both, they are not the same. Do you understand the difference between revelation and illumination?
With "revelation", Holy Spirit is revealing God and His plan. Who He is and what He has done. The final revelation has been given with the person of Jesus Christ and the events surrounding His death, burial and resurrection, the founding of the church. That revelation was recorded as scripture by men so inspired by Holy Spirit they wrote exactly what God wanted us to have, without violating their own personal styles, purposes, or intellect.
With "illumination", Holy Spirit is enlightning our understanding of the "revelation" already given.
So, when we read scripture, Holy Spirit isn't giving us new revelation, He is enlightening our understanding of the revelation already given.
When someone writes a "good book" (i.e. Pilgrim's Progress), they are responding to the illumination of Holy Spirit of the revelation already given. They then write a book that helps others to understand what they have learned, which may or may not be accurate.
So, the work of Holy Spirit is not the same in revelation and illumination.
Do you now understand the difference between revelation and illumination? The work of Holy Spirit is not the same with each one.
peace to you.
raying:
Good explanation. Thanks.
Now, to clarify, I'm assuming that the "good book" IS true, though I understand that it may not be because it's not scripture. But if you suppose for the sake of the argument that the Pilgrim's Progress is true then how is it not revelatory? It gives us insight, through analogy, that the scripture itself does not give. For example, the many books written on the doctrine of the trinity, if we suppose one is true, then is it not revelatory in giving someone understand of that doctrine?
It seems to me that illumination is more "revelatory" than revelation by your explanation because it's only through illumination that one can have understanding.
Anyway, you and I may not really have much of a point of contention because you don't seem to argue, as do some, that God does "causally determine" all things that come to pass in such a way that they could not be otherwise. That may be more of a philosophical debate with which you have not engaged.
