Origins of Evil and Will of Man

In addition to my comment above, your analogy leaves the question of cause in terms of the murderous employer unanswered. Does not his action have a cause? And that action? And that action? Man is a contingent being and as such can never serve as the first cause. Every action in man is ultimately caused by an action that leads to a cause that is of necessity outside of him. Otherwise, you end up with an uncaused cause, which if it is not God, is impossible. This is basic thought. No one would deny this. The is evolutionary theory's thorn in the side. (well, one of them at least)

If you are saying that God decreed the fall and that He is also not the author of sin, I think we are in perfect agreement. Secondly, if you actually believe God is absolutely independent, then how did the fall come about to begin with? What sin did Adam commit in order to fall? Independence was Adam's sin. His desire for autonomy in all things. To determine right and wrong and to know as God = autonomy. I wonder about how we view sin. William Lane Craig admits an unavoidable reductioinistic view of God is necessary if the problem of evil is to be harmonized within the Arminian system (in my view he seeks respectability among God-hating atheists and no less God-hating liberal theologians, but that is another discussion).

You seem to be arguing that God decreed everything and that every that happens depends ultimately on God which makes God the ultimate cause of all things while at the same time denying this.

Can you provide me with your understanding of divine aseity? What does it mean or look like for God to be absolutely independent?

Are you a Molinist?

NOTE: The doctrines of God, man, and sin are where these Calvinist-Arminian discussion rightly belong in my opinion. Otherwise one ends up spinning his wheels in fruitless discuss which can lead to sin. This, I am sure, we both wish to avoid.

I am only guilty of doubletalk if my speech or written statements contradict one another. Scripture clearly teaches that:

1. God is not the author of sin. (James 1:13)

2. God determines the entire course of all events in the created order. (Heb. 1:3; Dan. 4:34-35; Eph. 1:11)

Examples

God predetermined Christ would die by the wicked hands of ungodly men. Judas sinned in his betrayal of Christ. Those who murdered the innocent Messiah are guilty are the most atrocious act any man could commit. Yet, they did what they did by divine decree.

The act was both necessary and voluntary but it was not coerced. God was the ultimate cause of the crucifixion even though that event required the necessary, but voluntary sin of Judas and all the officials involved. If God was not the ultimate cause, then God's plan was dependent. God has no dependencies, as you have already agreed. Man necessarily, but freely so far as the word free is concerned, did what God ultimate decreed they would do.

Another example is Job. Contrary to what many assume, it was not Satan's idea to attack Job, it was God's. God sent Satan to place Job under the greatest trial we could imagine outside of Christ's passion. Satan sent the Sabeans and the Chaldeans to rob Job of his livestock and murder his servants. So let's break this down.

God was the prime mover who sent Satan off on his project. Satan brought in two bands of thieves and murders to do his bidding. God was providentially in back of everything that happened to Job. How is God off the hook for the robbing and murdering in this case? We know that God was the ultimate cause of what happened to Job. We know that Satan was an intermediary. We know the Sabeans and the Chaldeans were the immediate cause. Who will be judged for the evil? Satan the intermediary and the Sabeans and Chaldeans. Why? Because they voluntarily, though necessarily engaged in wicked deeds. We know these are true because they are what Scripture presents to us. What we do not do is attempt to carry our finite and often vain speculation beyond the revelation. Do we have difficulty harmonizing these truths to our own liking? Yes we do. Some are more difficult than others. However, nothing is more difficult to harmonize than the Trinity and the hypostatic union. We seem to be very willing to accept the limitations of human finitude perfectly well when those subjects arise.

James,

If you can acknowledge God is "behind" one sin, why not another?

Is God still sovereign if He does not rule in some instance?

Suppose Scripture had not revealed to us precisely what happened in these accounts or the numerous other accounts where the exact same action is taking place. Would that mean that our harmonization of these accounts in this fashion would make God the monster you think we make Him? It does not follow that just because God chose, for purposes known only to Himself, to hide the exact fashion of how sin came to be that it could not be exactly the way other events of this sort occurred in Scripture. That is arguing from the lack of evidence. We have several examples of how this works in Scripture. We see God's role, Satan's role, man's role, etc. Why is it wrong to consider that it worked the same or at least very similar during the fall so long as we say that we are merely showing how it could have happened without impugning God. We may call this informed speculation based on solid Scriptural evidence of the same events as elsewhere disclosed.

In man's case, however, I think you are wrong. God used Satan as the instrument by which man would be tempted to autonomy. Just as He used the devil in several other places, he used him in the fall of man as well. Adam fell by God's decree. We can say that Adam's fall was both necessary and voluntary, but not coerced. He did what he did willingly.

In your view, sin entered the world apart from God's control. If God could have stopped it from happening and He did not, then you are no better off. You end up with a God who is not only not sovereign, but not omnipotent either. At the end of the day, even in your view of downgraded sovereignty, God is still just as culpable for sin as in the Calvinist scheme. However, the difference is that in the Calvinist scheme, nothing is outside of God's control. Not even sin. It really comes down to this: chance or control? If chance, Christian theism is folly. If control, then it is either man or God? If man, God is not in control. If God, then man is not in control.

I would be interested how God is off the hook in Job's case and in Christ's death in your system. We have said that Scripture teaches explicitly that God is not the author of sin and that God is sovereign. Now we have provided two very basic examples (of which there are many others in Scripture) to demonstrate that these two truths co-exist and work in harmony one with the other. You have not offered a rebuttal of any kind demonstrating how I may have wrongly understood the text. In fact, your comments indicate that my understanding of the text is correct. If God can pull these things off based on the evidence I provided without being guilty of authoring sin in these cases, then why not the fall of Satan?

1. RESPONSE
I never said it was personal. To call a person’s view of God repugnant or malicious is not personal. It is an assessment of that person’s views. You say you find my attempt at harmonization “lacking, severely.” I believe you. However, you have not attempted to show me specifically why or how. I provided you with Scripture that asserts God is not the author of sin, that God does everything He pleases, and pointed to two basic records of these events as demonstration of how they work out. I surmised that it is highly possible that this is precisely how the fall became. I postulated that it is not unreasonable to consider that the very first sin came about in similar fashion, although with a component of mystery that God has been pleased to guard. You have not shown why I am wrong for thinking this way. All you have said is my attempts are lacking, severely. Well, James, anyone can say that. Even an untrained, unskilled, and newborn Christian can say that. But saying that is not a response. Saying that is not interacting with my argument. Accusing me of repeating typical reform speak is not interacting with the argument before you. You are not responding with anything of substance. Take what I have argued and break it down. Show me why, if Judas, Christ, and Job’s case can all work precisely the way I have said, the same cannot be true of the fall? You have simply inferred, and that without justification, that the fall must somehow be different.
2. RESPONSE
If Adam were coerced against his will, your point would hold. He was not! Therefore, your point fails. God does as He pleases. I asked you earlier if anything happened outside of God’s decree and you said no. This means you agree that everything that happens, happens by God’s decree. Therefore, Adam fell because God, in His wisdom decreed he should fall. Yet, Adam freely, willingly chose to opt for autonomy, independence from God, rather than eternal life. It is true that God’s decree guaranteed this would happen. It is equally true that Adam was not forced to do anything against his will. Since Adam willingly acted in the manner in which he did, he is responsible for his own sin. In order for God to author sin, He must have forced the act contrary to will. In order for Adam to be excusable, he must have been forced to sin contrary to his willing it. By definition, sin is a metaphysical and ethical impossibility for God. Sin is to act against divine will. God cannot act against His own will.
The only thing pernicious error needs in order to prevail is for men to do nothing. I do not see myself as the last line of defense in protection of God’s nature. However, I do think it my duty to defend God’s honor wherever it is either attacked, or compromised. I think it would be best if you would refrain from the personal remarks about who I read and how I see myself and rather stick to the topic at hand. How does Scripture read on the matter? That is what we are discussing. Regarding Arminian foreknowledge, is this the same idea of foreknowledge that elevates libertarian freedom to the place that it brings in middle knowledge to save its bacon when it becomes clear that it is incoherent when pressed by plain reason and revelation?
3. RESPONSE
James, if there is any abstruseness on my part regarding your view, whose fault is that? You seem to dance ever so slowly around what it is you believe. You continue to offer assaults on how things are not without providing any hint of how you think they are.
4. RESPONSE
Your understanding of the issue is not limited? I would never deny my finitude on any subject. Only God possess exhaustive knowledge. By calling my understanding limited, you imply your own is somehow superior. I am sure that was not your intention. Nevertheless, it is the unavoidable consequent. It is one thing to call my view heresy, heterodoxy, wrong, blind, or whatever other term you want to call it. But let us refrain from personal slights. They only detract from the subject we are dealing with. Scripture has explicit instructions for how we should interact with one another, does it not? I propose we submit to those instructions and leave comments about one’s grasp of the issue or lack thereof aside.

The premise that God brings about all that he decrees is necessarily true unless you want to argue that God’s decrees are not efficacious. I do not think you wish to go there. So, if God has decreed it, it absolutely must come to pass. How could an omnipotent, omniscient God decree something that does not actually happen? If He decrees it, He is powerful enough to bring it to pass. And if He is omniscient, He knows how to bring it to pass. The only other option is that God decrees things He has no intention of actualizing. However, such a god would be irrational. Therefore, we must conclude that whatever God decrees, He also brings to past. I suppose one could offer up that idea that God acts without a decree. That would mean he flies by the proverbial seat of His pants in anthropomorphic language. Is that the kind of God Scripture reveals? In my estimation, this reply sufficiently answers the first question: does God bring about all that He decrees? Clearly we must affirm.

As to the second question, does God only do what He wants to do? If we answer in the negative then we admit that God does things He actually does not want to do, or that events actualize contrary to His plan, will, or decree. The question then goes to cause. What would cause God to do that which He does not want to do? Or, what would cause something to actualize contrary to God’s plan, will, or decree? If we answer that God causes Himself to do what He does not want to do or that He does not do the things He really wants to do, then we are back to where we started. Since God caused Himself to do these things, then He must have wanted to do them and therefore the idea would be classified as self-referentially incoherent. On the other hand, if such a cause actually exists, it must exist outside of God. If that is the case, we have a dualistic reality, and have entered a world unlike anything orthodox Christianity has ever affirmed. Moreover, if such a cause exists, then it must be more powerful than God since it has caused God to do what God really, actually did not want to do or it has prevented Him from doing that which He really, actually wanted to do. Either way, in this system, God is not a se as I affirmed way back on this chain and I do believe you affirmed that along with me.

The third alternative is that God decrees some things while leaving other things to what exactly? I almost supplied the word "chance" but you have already indicated your rejection of that notion. Suffice it to say that actions that are outside of God's decree always run the risk, if they are genuinely free of His decree, of actually compromising and rendering ineffective that decree. This we must rule out for it also smacks of irrationalism and is unknown to Scripture in any sense whatever.

Proof God does as He pleases:
The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation. Ps. 33:11
Many plans are in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand. Pr. 19:21
Declaring the end from the beginning, and ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure. Is. 46:10
But He is unique and who can turn Him? And what His soul desires, that He does. For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such decrees are with Him. Job 23:13-14
This is merely a sampling of Scripture that speaks on the matter. I have to say that you are still not providing for affirmations of what you believe, only what you do not believe. As we know, it much easier to play offense than it is defense.

I appreciate your remarks regarding the personal comments. We are good as far as that goes. There was a lot to respond to in your post. I tried to limit this response to the question of the efficacy of the divine decree and the consequences of the opposing view which I think are 1) unavoidable and 2) represent a view of God that is inconsistent with orthodoxy. In essence, it would seem to me that your denial of efficacious decree compromises divine aseity, and undermines the received view of God revealed in Scripture and taught in the Christian church for over 2000 years now.

Larry, I am not driven by logic, but merely pointed out how the compatibilist system is driven by call something a mystery because of its logic. This should be easily agreed upon since I already provided a quote from a compatibilist (well known) who said as much and also said he didn't know who could answer it. I find that Calvinists pride themselves on how logical their system is, but it actually isn't and has a very deep flaw at a fundamental level.

I do not have to reveal all of my position to show the faultiness of another.

You can accept that conclusion all you want. My point is that the compatibilist theory must appeal to mystery on a point that is contrary.

To answer your question: yes God knew with certainty that Adam was going to sin. Adam was going to sin. That is not the point of the discussion though.

Yes Larry, to that last point, it goes back to first cause. Did God cause Adam to sin? The hard determinists think compatibilists are essentially arminian for DENYING that God caused Adam to sin. Calvinist on calvinist crime.

God's knowlege is not an issue because all camps except the open theists agree that God completely knows everything.

Larry, let us go back to Adam. It is being argued that if God is the first cause of all things. God also did not author sin. However, there is nothing Adam could do to not sin. The desire to sin did not originate in Adam but God, because nothing happens outside His decree. Adam did not act independently of God since the plan was followed. In this view, Adam was in the first catch-22.

I think this is very relevant to the issue. While we apparently all believe that Adam could not not sin, the cause behind it is where it is different. I do not agree with the way compatibilists try to reconcile God's sovereignty and knowledge.

There is no contradiction when we say that God can use satan as a tool against Job. There is no contradiction that God could determine Christ's death at the hands of wicked men. There is contradiction to say God is the first cause and yet not the author of sin. That is why those two arguments do not compare well enough to factor into the discussion.

God decreed these events prior to Adam's fall. God's decrees exist from eternity past. Therefore, these decrees were either dependent on nothing for their actualization or they were dependent on something. If they were dependent on something outside of God, God's decree, plan, will, is dependent. If that is the case, God is dependent. If you say Christ and Judas' events were dependent on Adam's freedom, then God's plan depends on Adam, not God. If you say that God's plan is not dependent on Adam or anyone outside of God, Adam of necessity must fall. You cannot affirm efficacious decree in one place and take it away in another. You cannot affirm God as the ultimate cause of "some" things but not "all" things. This is why we distinguish between ultimate and immediate in cause, primary and secondary. If Adam had not fallen, God's decree regarding the Christ event would have fallen to the ground. If David had not taken Bethsheba, the same would have happened. What sin was involved in that history! What Joseph's brothers intended for evil, God working in and through them, intended it for good!

Charlie, I think they differ like this:

Death of Christ:
1. God determined it.
2. God participated in it (Is 53 is very clear about this).
3. Men participated in it.

Sin of Adam:
1. God determined it.
2. God did NOT participate in it (compatabilists say that)
3. Man committed it.

This is a major difference between the two events. Now, hard determinists do not deny God's participation in the sin of Adam. That would be too arminian to them.

Jay, to your point, I think there is more to it. Adam would have been doing the will of God. If sin is setting your will against God, then Adam was still good.

So God has two competing/contradicting wills, which damn men regardless of what they do? This gets into very dangerous ground. The verse about not tempting men with evil is essentially meaningless then.

Jay, liability/responsibility is not based upon ability or even choice.

We pray because the Bible says we are to. Whether it is efficacious or not bears no point in whether we are to pray.

Adam, not God, is directly responsible for his own sin. God did not place the evil desire within Adam, nor did He coerce Adam in any way. Adam freely decided to reject God's sovereignty, preferring rather to set his own rules. All that is necessary for there to be liability is that a law giver exists who has issued a law. Nothing more. Even though God never forced Adam to sin against His will, God always remained in control and the fall of Adam into sin had in back of it God's decree. Otherwise, you end up with the existence of evil outside of God's control. Or as I said earlier, you end up with a god who does not rule by decree and design. This is a god who truly is taken off guard, who truly responds to man's free will. I do not believe Scripture teaches that such a god exists. But arguments like this is where Arminians ultimately end up retreating to in an effort to protect libertarian freedom and the pelagian notion that ought implies can, and that freedom must compromise sovereignty somehow. Otherwise they say, Calvin's God is a monster. Me Genoitai!

No one is arguing that God always takes the same role in the events that He has decreed. For instance, God's role in predestination and not the same as it is in reprobation. In regeneration, God removes a stony heart and replaces it with a heart of flesh. Nowhere does God remove a heart inclined toward Him and replace it with a stony heart. He hardened Pharoah's heart, but Pharoah's heart was always wicked, never having been regenerated.

1. What is "knowledge" if God knows both of these worlds in the same way?

2. What does it mean that for God to guide free actions? How does he do that?

3. If God knows that Adam freely chooses to sin, is Adam free to change his mind and not sin?

Here we go with "possible world" semantics and molinism. I was wondering how long it would take to get there. I will address why molinism fails in a separate post. Christian orthodoxy has held that there are two aspects to God's knowledge: first, God's free knowledge by which He knows all future events. Second, God's natural knowledge, by which He knows everything else, to include real counterfactuals.

God moves free moral agents with a variety of means. Sometimes He acts as the direct cause as in Creation, Miracles, divine revelation, etc. Other times, and most frequently, He uses secondary means to carry out His plan. This is always the case when sin is involved, such as Joseph's brothers, Job, Judas, and the Crucifixion. Scripture clearly teaches this to be the case and unless someone wishes to deny divine revelation, they must admit to it.

Adam was not forced to sin by anyone. If God knew Adam would sin, how could Adam have changed his mind? If God knew it, it had to happen. But that does not mean Adam was forced.

The Arminian accuses the Calvinist of creating a system based on human logic. This is simply not the case. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The Calvinist admits the tension and confesses to the present mystery involved in revelation on this issue. The Calvinist says we know God is absolutely sovereign and that man is responsible "by faith." We believe the revelation of Scripture. The Arminian denies soveriegnty in perference for libertarian freedom because his reason will not allow him to do otherwise. In his system, he only believes what human reason can perfectly harmonize. This makes reason the magistrate over faith. The Calvinist does not dismiss reason, but rather puts it in its proper place, as the minister of faith, never her magistrate.

Jay, I was answering what compatibilists say, not giving my own view. If you have read this entire thread, including from the other Piper post, you would know that I do not agree with their position.

Once again though, it is important to note that classic arminianism affirms the complete foreknowledge of God in every way. This reality that we exist in only has one future outcome. It involves the fact that Adam fell and damned humanity. There is no learning curve with God. This timeline of events was known with certainty by God prior to creation.

If Calvin were alive today, he would wish the Giants good luck versus the Patriots.

To accept that God is sovereign is to accept that nothing, not even the will of man, lays outside His decretal actions. Since God's knowledge is wholly independent and of Himself, He does not learn, via middle knowledge, which possible world should obtain because it is the best possible world. The highly speculative theory of middle knowledge is nothing more than an Arminian creation designed to defend libertarian freedom. The reformed view that God decreed the fall, that the fall necessarily happened, that God did not coerce Adam, and that Adam acted freely are in perfect accord and harmony, not only with one another, but with the revelation of Scripture which informs us repeatedly that God does whatever He wants. It is only the case that God caused sin if God coerced Adam or directly tempted Him that we have abhorrent doctrine and a contradiction in revelation. Reformed compatibilism teaches no such thing and therefore, upon that view cannot be said to impugn God. The only way you can indict compatibilism is if you can show that it asserts that Adam was not free in his choice. Compatibilism asserts just the opposite repeatedly. One may not like the mystery that remains as a result of the view. One may even criticize compatibilism for how it uses logic. One may even say it absues or mistreats human reason. I am fine moving the discsussion in that direction. But compatibilism cannot fairly be criticized as a view that impugns God's character by making Him the author of sin. To do that, one has to successfully show that God made Adam sin against His will or that God was the one actually temping Adam to sin. The whole point of compatibilism is to show just the opposite.

Libertarian freedom has been shown to fail repeatedly. The human will is not an island unto itself, living in the land of the uncaused.

Even for the Molinist, the evil within "this best of all possible worlds" obtained. This does not at all harmonize foreknowledge with freedom. God could have not created at all, hence removing the existence of evil. But He did not.

A wholly self-existent deity cannot possess middle knowledge. The two are violent contradictions. To be wholly self-existent means all knowledge flows FROM you. It never comes TO you.

Since the acts of the will are antecedent to the decree in the scheme of middle knowledge, this makes the acts of the human will sovereign. God's knowledge depends on how the will acts in the future. God responds accordingly. This moves us ever closer to open theism.

God's natural knowledge asserts that God could have created a world different than this one. Therefore God's knowledge is not limited. God's free knowledge asserts that God freely chose to create this world, preserving God's freedom, hence His sovereignty. Middle knowledge becomes superfluous at best.

Bold Added

They only affirm a foreknowledge that they have invented by redefinition. The biblical usage of the word is clear that God's foreknowledge is determinative, while the classic Arminian usage is to now without controlling.

Jay,

Ed keeps making a key point that God's determination did not run afoul of Adam's desire - Adam wasn't coerced to do what God wanted done. This is crucial to the reformed understanding.

Jay, speaking of problematic, you are introducing the idea that God is not omnscient because his knowledge might be wrong.

Let's take a run at this this way: Let's say, for sake of illustration, that there are three possible futures: A, B, and C. Does God know which of those futures is actual (that is, it will happen) and which two are only possible (that is, they will not happen)?

Jay, if A,B, and C are mutually exclusive, then when God knows that A will occur, in what sense are B and C possible? It seems that you're operating with a very odd sense of "could". Your "could happen" actually means "will not happen."

When I say, "I could get this job or I could not," I am expressing my own lack of future knowledge. But, if I did not lack future knowledge, I would not say that. I would say either, "I will" or "I won't."

So, that leads me back to the idea that the only meaningful sense in which we can talk about whether or not Adam could have not sinned is when we consider, from the creature's perspective, whether there was an external necessity compelling him to do so.

Foreknowledge, to know before. If you want to say there is a special love or whatever, that is besides the point being discussed. My statement is true.

There was never a time God did not completely know all things. There are no order of decrees. Talk about speculation...

Charles, have you read through this whole thread? I have answered it more than once. The compatibilist affirms both of those points, but knows they contradict, so they just call it a mystery.

Ed has been saying that whatever happens, happens by decree. Whether God decreed that Adam fall or God decreed to make Adam fall, still puts the original thought, motive, and responsibility with God as its author in their structure. Adam was simply following the secret will of God. Whatever twist is given, the idea to sin did not original within Adam. Calvin said so and Edward taught against it.

I think discussions like this are good in that they expose the disunity of calvinism.

One calvinist went so far as to call John Gerstner an arminian.

Tom Schreiner said, "The scandal of the Calvinist system is that ultimately the logical problems posed cannot be fully resolved."
quoted from The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, Vol 2., p 381.

This is a very real indictment on a system that prides itself on logic, consistency, and order. A fundamental point of the system is deeply flawed.

Charles, I have quoted compatibilist and hard determinists many times in this discussion. They do not see a difference either. I am not making up what they say, simply responding to it.

Jay,
That's a good catch in the sense of making a distinction.

I'll rephrase my statement: I cannot have a servant stand before me and say that he will go and tell a lie to my enemy to achieve the purpose I have asked him to achieve and righteously tell him to go and execute his plan, but it is clear that God can.

So, I would still refer you to my question I asked earlier in regard to your programming analogy. Within the context of your analogy, I think Adam is a perfect example of a weak creation being made to demonstrate its weakness for the purpose of contrasting it to that which is greater and thereby glorifying it. God creates a world that is perfect for Adam, then he creates Adam and his wife and places them in it. Then he introduces into this perfect scenario a talking, lying snake and Adam is overcome (And Adam is in sharp contrast to Christ who was placed into an imperfect world filled with many talking, lying snakes, and he is victorious.). The fact that God created Adam in a way that left no chance for him to not be overcome is no different than if you stretched a slender stick across an opening and then dropped a heavy rock upon it. And saying that God cannot find fault with Adam because WHO HAS RESISTED GOD'S WILL is as I mention above, to argue against Romans 9 - it is the very line of questioning that Paul is anticipating and replying to. It is the argument that my heart makes in indignation at not being more significant than I am.

Matthew 4:1 (NASB95)
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

How does this work? The Spirit of God brought about the antecedents necessary for the Son of God Himself to actually be tempted by the devil! Let me phrase it another way, and Adam was led into the Garden of Eden to be tempted by the Devil. Since the question here really has to do with God's role in the temptation to sin, I thought this historical fact might be worth adding to the discussion. At a minimum it gives us something else to chew on (as if we did not already have enough).

Look, here is the bottom line: the only way Calvinists can be guilty of distorting James is if we claim that God directly tempted Adam to sin or if we claim that God directly forced Adam against his will to commit evil. God can bring about all the antecedents He pleases and so long as He does not do these two things, James 1:13 is not compromised. The Calvinist affirms loudly that God did not force Adam to sin. He affirms that God did not tempt Adam to sin. What the Calvinist is saying is that God can be the ultimate cause of all things without violating James 1:13. How God does that, we do not know. It is NOT an actual contradiction. It only appears as one because of our limited knowledge of HOW it works. The reason Calvinists affirm this is because biblical revelation about God's independence, freedom, and sovereignty clearly spell out that God does what He wants to do. He is in complete control of all things, to include things that happen by the direct result of human willing. We believe this because it is what Scripture teaches.

The text in James says God is not tempted by evil (how could He be?) nor does He tempt anyone. Yet, God was the ultimate cause in Joseph's case, David and Bethsheba, Job, Judas, the Crucifixion and many others. Scripture is clear about this. Joseph's brothers said, what you intended for evil, God INTENDED for good. Man's evil intentions are also, at the same time, a tool by which God to accomplishes His good pleasure. How many different ways does it have to be stated? James 1 does not just apply to Adam in his created and free condition, it applies to the very concept of temptation in general. Saying God can do with wicked hearts what He could not do with Adam does not help alleviate the contradiction that would create with James. James did not say God does not tempt Adam but He can wicked hearts.

Chip,

1. That God can use something/someone is not being debated by me.

2. Affirming those points is not hard. Harmonizing them is. In fact, if you can do it, write RC Sproul so he can learn of someone who figured it out. I can affirm that a rooster is both completely blue and completely white and just call it a mystery. That doesn't make it true though.

This is a glaring weakness in compatibilism.

Charles, while I am glad to interact on this, please remember that I did not make up this conflict and that Calvin called compatibilism foolishness.

Previously I showed that Edwards argued that man will do whatever his greatest desire is. God created Adam very good without evil or evil desire. Where did Adam's desire to sin come from? Since all knowledge proceeds from God, and this is tied to His decrees, then by the admissions of compatibilists, Adam could not have known sin without God somehow working it in him. Even if you blame Satan, just back it up to him. Where did he first get the desire? Compatibilists seem to want God to have tripped Adam by the first affirmation, but not have any responsibility for Adam's fall in the second affirmation.

I would like to see a compatibilist interact with Post #65.

Eve was deceived, Adam wasn't. Adam was intentional. Paul said that to Timothy.

Paul Helm says,

You should always provide your reference James and the exact quote with its reference. Calvin was NOT confused. I will go out on a limb and say what Calvin thought was foolish was likely the notion that libertarian freedom could coexist with any form of determinism. And on that he would be right. You are the one that made the comment about Calvin to begin with and I simply showed that your statement was not in accord with what Calvin actually wrote. If all you have is a statement from some source, that would be entirely inadaquate to assess anyone's view on a subject as complex as compatilbilism.

You and Jay C have been asked repeatedly to show how God's sovereignty actually violates James 1:13, which is being lifted out of context to begin with, and you have yet to provide one plausible statement to that end. You have been shown and even admitted that God, through a variety of antecedents involving sin, brought about the crucifixion of Christ, the betrayal by Judas, the calamity of Job, the deception of Jacob, the humiliation of the great Pharaoh, and even the union of David and Bethsheba. And the best you can do in your responses is to say, "I disagree because of James 1:13." You nor Jay C have provided not one viable alternative that does not deform God by downgrading His knowledge and sovereignty.

This conversation is a perfect example of how Liberal theology is the natural logical outworking of Arminian theology. Libertarian freedom is the sacred idol. It must be preserved at all costs. So God ends up being the tortured victim of all kinds of wild speculations.

Gen. 50:20 proves God uses evil intentions of men for His own good pleasure according to His own plan.
Job 23:13-14 The Lord does whatever He desires.
JOb 42:2 "NO PURPOSE OF THINE CAN BE THWARTED."
Ps. 22:27-28 The LORD rules over all the nations.
Ps. 33:14,15 From His dwelling place He looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, He who fashions the hearts of them all, He who understands all their works.
103:19 The Lord has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all.
Ps. 115:3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
135:6 Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in seas and in all deeps.
16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.
Pr. 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Pr. 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.
Pr. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Pr. 21:1 The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.
Pr. 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord will be established.
Pr. 21:31 The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but victory belongs to the Lord.
Isaiah 10:15 Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood.
Isaiah 14:27 For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?
Isaiah 43:13 Even from eternity I am He; and there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?
Isaiah 45:6,7 There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well being and creating calamity [Lit.,"ra", evil]. I am the Lord who does all these.
Isaiah 45:12 It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, and I ordained all their host.
Isaiah 46:9-11 For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure"; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
Daniel 11:36 For that which is decreed will be done.
Amos 3:6-8 If calamity [lit. "ra", evil] occurs in a city has not the Lord done it? Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy?
Acts 17:26-28 And He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation...for in Him we live and move and are.
Rom. 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Eph. 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.

This is just a sampling of Scripture that very simply says God really, truly does whatever He wants. He governs all of life from the beginning to the end and everything that happens, happens according to his decree. Nothing happens that the LORD did not plan to happen. NOTHING! This is what it means to be sovereign. The man who says that God can decide not to be sovereign over the free will of man is no different than the open theist or the process heretic. Just like God cannot sin, He cannot decide NOT to be sovereign. Such absurd foolishness would be like saying that God can stop being God if He wants, since He is God. There was a time when I was a young Christian struggling with these ideas that I thought to myself, "perhaps God is powerful enough to decide NOT to know certain things." But I continued to recognized that whatever answers I found, I had to find them in Scripture. As I grew in the Lord, I realized that there is an ethical component to this discussion that many people miss. There is a humility with which we must clothe ourselves. We must admit that Scrpture denies there to be any truth in the theory that God did not bring about the fall because He brings about all that happens. AND, we must admit that while we know God, in bringing it about, did not tempt Adam or force Adam against His will, nevertheless, He was the ultimate cause in back of it all. He had to be because Scripture teaches He reigns and governs and controls all things. All things are working according to His predetermined plan set in eternity past. Otherwise, Scripture is wrong and God is NOT sovereign. We humbly accept this truth and subdue our wicked desires to know even that which God has been pleased to hide. Rather than engage in foolish specualtion and conclusions that violate and rob God of His essence, we bow the knee in humble submission and thank Him for His grace in choosing us to salvation in His Son.