Origins of Evil and Will of Man
Forum category
This is split off from the http://sharperiron.org/filings/1-6-12/21320: John Piper: Salvation Not ‘A Decision’ Filing thread in order to more fully discuss the origin of evil and the will of man.
Edingess:James K:God has also revealed Himself to be absolutely SOVEREIGN! Therefore, God is the ultimate cause of all that happens, though not the immediate cause. Secondly, there is no hesitation on my part to answer your question. Perhaps you should consult the meaning of ultimate cause and sovereignty. Soveregnty and Ultimate Cause are interchangable. You are arguing that an event can exist that ultimately God did not bring about! Scripture knows nothing of this god. In your attempt to preserve human freedom, you have compromised the divine!Edingess: Of some things we can be sure. Others remain a mystery. The things certain do not make the things mysterious less mysterious. We have certain revelation of the essence, being, and character of God. Some of these things we know with certainty. Any view that compromises God’s revealed essence, being, character, is a view that deserves criticism and condemnation. God, in His wisdom has provided us with some of the answers. Some answers remain obscure and in the dark. We are better off taking the humble route in such cases and admitting that we simply cannot say for sure how or why some things are the way they are. God is the ultimate cause of all things. God is not the author of sin. These are answers God has clearly revealed in Scripture. Shall we impugn either of them because 1) we don’t like what they imply or 2) we can’t harmonize them as completely as our sinful intellect desires?1. I am glad you agree that we must put God’s revelation above our own thoughts. God has indeed revealed himself to be absolutely holy who cannot sin or even tempt with sin.
If we stop right there, then we can answer my original question: God is not the first cause in Adam’s sin.
2. “God is the ultimate cause of all things. God is not the author of sin.” While you agree they are answers clearly revealed, why the hesitation regarding answering the question? It is because such a view does not conform well to reformedspeak, which has to see God as the first cause in all things or he isn’t really sovereign. Further, if there is one area he isn’t sovereign in, then he isn’t sovereign at all. Systems based in logic do not appreciate thinking outside the box or questioning those super smart WCF authors. Your own answer is doubletalk. God cannot be the ultimate cause of all things and not also be the cause of sin.
When I ask you why Adam sinned, you could simply answer: because God is the ultimate cause of all things.
yet
When I ask you why Adam sinned, you simply say: it is all a mystery.
There is no mystery to God’s character Ed. All you have succeeded in doing is reemphasizing the doublespeak of compatibilism. Your allegiance is to a system.
God predetermind that Judas would betray Christ. (ultimate cause)
Satan entered Judas, leading him to betray Christ. (intermediate)
Judas betrayed Christ. (subordinate)
Who was the ulimate cause of Judas’ betrayal of Christ? God, Satan, or Judas?
Ever heard of a se? “God is independent, all sufficient in himself, and the only source of all existence and life. [Bavinck: God depends on nothing. You are implying that God depends on the cooperation of libertarian freedom in creatures in order to accomplish His purpose. A frustrated deity is no deity. In your efforts to protect God from your own false conclusion that Calvinism impugns Him, you end up robbing Him of His sovereignty. You employ a strategy for this error by repainting the aseity of God as the mere product of human logic rather than the result of revelation. Your view appears to introduce passive potency into God’s knowledge. This makes God less than independent. As one theologian put it, God is either determining or determined; there is no alternative. W.L. Craig admits that this thinking compromises God’s pure actuality, but thinks nothing of it. Since all the divine perfections are included in aseity, if it be compromised or downgraded, it necessarily takes God with it. How much of God’s absoluteness can we give up before He stops being God? My answer is NONE! How far can man move from the divine revelation of God’s absoluteness before His god is clearly NOT the God of revelation?
If you wish to continue this discussion, it probably deserves its own thread.
- 207 views
Jay C.
You said:
The first is that you are confusing the term “angry” with “find unacceptable”.
When I write a test case, I often expect it to fail.
When I write a set of code to show a customer that there is a superior way of doing something, I always expect the unacceptable method to fail, and I expect it to be demonstrative. And even though I wrote it, I look at it and say, “as you can see, this method does not work. now let me show you a superior way”.
I can’t see Adam as being anything other than a demonstrative test case. Read the genealogy of Luke, he was the son of God who failed, to be contrasted with the Son of God who cannot fail (in much the same way that Israel, a chosen people with the law, but without the spirit of God indwelling them failed and killed the savior). In much the way that the law was not sufficient. and so on and so on.
The other way in which it is wrong is that you are starting to argue against Scripture itself. Read Romans 9:19-20
You said:
Here’s an easy comparison - If I write a programming language that stipulates that the background for a program must be blue, who is to blame that the program displays red? I am, because I am the one with ultimate control over the created script. The script can’t determine the error and fix itself, and I have no right to be angry at the script for doing what I coded.There are two problems with your programming analogy.
The first is that you are confusing the term “angry” with “find unacceptable”.
When I write a test case, I often expect it to fail.
When I write a set of code to show a customer that there is a superior way of doing something, I always expect the unacceptable method to fail, and I expect it to be demonstrative. And even though I wrote it, I look at it and say, “as you can see, this method does not work. now let me show you a superior way”.
I can’t see Adam as being anything other than a demonstrative test case. Read the genealogy of Luke, he was the son of God who failed, to be contrasted with the Son of God who cannot fail (in much the same way that Israel, a chosen people with the law, but without the spirit of God indwelling them failed and killed the savior). In much the way that the law was not sufficient. and so on and so on.
The other way in which it is wrong is that you are starting to argue against Scripture itself. Read Romans 9:19-20
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?Paul anticipates this very question and answers it because he knew it would occur to us in his line of reasoning. No one objects, if an author writes a book and creates a villain and then despises the villain. In such a case, who would argue that the villain speak back to the author? In the same way, if I make two pots, can I not use one for target practice and the other as decoration? And does the pot have any say in this? Does the maker have an obligation to the thing that he has made? We understand our authority when we relate to our own creations, we only demand that the creator has an obligation to the things he makes when we realize that we are nothing more than dust and it offends us.
Just because God knows of a world where Adam freely chooses to sin does not mean that he has lost control of it. God can know of both a world in which Adam sins and a world in which Adam does not - and then guides all of those free actions to His Ultimate end.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?
1. That is Perfect knowledge - the ability to know all the possible outcomes of any given action at any given time. God has that, since He is omniscient.
2. I don’t know. That’s where I go to Ed’s “the secret things belong to the Lord” verse.
3. Yes.
2. I don’t know. That’s where I go to Ed’s “the secret things belong to the Lord” verse.
3. Yes.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Charles, I do think anger is the right term to use. I don’t have a ton of time right now, but here are a few verses…
[Psalm 7:7-11] The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me. Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous—you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God! My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.
[II Kings 23:26-27] Still the Lord did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. And the Lord said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”
[Ezekiel 16:35-43] “Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the Lord…So will I satisfy my wrath on you, and my jealousy shall depart from you. I will be calm and will no more be angry. Because you have not remembered the days of your youth, but have enraged me with all these things, therefore, behold, I have returned your deeds upon your head, declares the Lord God. Have you not committed lewdness in addition to all your abominations?It should be noted that Ezekiel is speaking of Jerusalem here.
[Revelation 14:9-10] And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”If anyone has the book http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Foreknowledge-James-K-Beilby/dp/0830826521] Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views , that covers a lot of what I say in a far more comprehensive treatment than I could ever do on SI.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
1. That is Perfect knowledge - the ability to know all the possible outcomes of any given action at any given time. God has that, since He is omniscient.But is that knowledge “perfect” if it does not distinguish between possible and actual? Does God know actual things in the same way that he knows possible things?
2. I don’t know. That’s where I go to Ed’s “the secret things belong to the Lord” verse.Why appeal to that here, and not with respect to the actual question in this thread?
3. Yes.So God’s knowledge might be wrong?
[Larry]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.Just because God knows of a world where Adam freely chooses to sin does not mean that he has lost control of it. God can know of both a world in which Adam sins and a world in which Adam does not - and then guides all of those free actions to His Ultimate end.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?
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.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
[Jay C.] Charles, I do think anger is the right term to use. I don’t have a ton of time right now, but here are a few verses…Jay C,
My issue with your term of “anger” is that it does not make sense with the analogy you yourself were using (programming). All analogies are abstractions but you were attempting to use a specific abstraction in a way that doesn’t make sense. What I was trying to do was interact with your analogy in a way that makes sense for the analogy while staying consistent to the position of predestination.
So, aside from the fact, that I think you are missing my point and not interacting with the argument I put forth, let’s just accept for the moment what you say. So would you would argue that in the scenario I am advocating that God cannot have anger toward Adam, but He can righteously throw him into Hell and find him at fault for failing?
Charles
[Jay C.]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.[James K] Jay, it is the necessary conclusion based on certain assumptions.I disagree, and think that this idea (that Adam HAD to sin because God commanded it) injects something into Divine Revelation that isn’t there.
Peter says that God is not willing that any should perish (II Peter 3:9), and yet now you and others are saying that it was God’s will that man WOULD perish because God declared that it had to happen. I can’t go there theologically.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
This is bigger than I would even attempt to get back into really. From what I have read, the only agreement on this issue I have with Jay is that we both do not agree with the compatibilism. I am not arminian and believe it to be in error. Both calvinism and arminianism are systems based in logic. I am puzzled that anyone denies otherwise. What is wrong with being a system based in logic? Nothing really, until the logic forces conclusions not supported by revelation. In other words, both sides make a series of if then statements and may be understood as leading to their conclusions, but the texts do not demand it.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
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.
If Calvin were alive today, he would wish the Giants good luck versus the Patriots.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Peter says that God is not willing that any should perish (II Peter 3:9), and yet now you and others are saying that it was God’s will that man WOULD perish because God declared that it had to happen. I can’t go there theologically.The context of this passage precludes the term “any” from meaning “all men everywhere.”
See the http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-2-peter-39] 2 Peter 3:9 thread.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
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.
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.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
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.I am going to continue to disagree with you strongly, but I believe that any further discussion on this will serve no purpose. I do not think that you are going to change your view, and I am not backing away that God’s knowledge determining that Adam must sin in order to bring about God’s plan is at best an extra-scriptural inference and at worst theologically wrong and demeaning to God.
The idea that because God knows something, it must occur is theologically problematic on several levels and it diminishes omniscience to only cover actual events, not all knowledge - or else how could God know what is a possibility? That is not what God knows; not when http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=1394] Scripture teaches that God knows all things .
Lest anyone claims that I am misinterpreting the Calvinist position, I would invite them to read http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.txt] what Lorraine Boettner writes :
And if the crucifixion of Christ, or His offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin, was in the eternal plan, then plainly the fall of Adam and all other sins which made that sacrifice necessary were in the plan, no matter how undesirable a part of that plan they may have been.Now compare that with Romans 5:12-14:
History in all its details, even the most minute, is but the unfolding of the eternal purposes of God. His decrees are not successively formed as the emergency arises, but are all parts of one all-comprehending plan, and we should never think of Him suddenly evolving a plan or doing something which He had not thought of before…
…Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God. We are told that Christ was “foreknown indeed (as a sacrifice for sin) before the foundation of the world,” I Peter 1:20. Paul speaks of “the eternal purpose” which was purposed in Jesus Christ our Lord, Eph. 3:1. The writer of Hebrews refers to “the blood of an eternal covenant,” 13:20. And since the plan of redemption is thus traced back into eternity, the plan to permit man to fall into the sin from which he was thus to be redeemed must also extend back into eternity; otherwise there would have been no occasion for redemption. In fact the plan for the whole course of the world’s events, including the fall, redemption, and all other events, was before God in its completeness before He ever brought the creation into existence; and He deliberately ordered it that this series of events, and not some other series, should become actual.
And unless the fall was in the plan of God, what becomes of our redemption through Christ? Was that only a makeshift arrangement which God resorted to in order to offset the rebellion of man? To ask such a question is to answer it. Throughout the Scriptures redemption is represented as the free, gracious purpose of God from eternity. In the very hour of man’s first sin, God sovereignly intervened with a gratuitous promise of deliverance. While the glory of God is displayed in the whole realm of creation, it was to be especially displayed in the work of redemption. The fall of man, therefore, was only one part and a necessary part in the plan; and even Watson, though a decided Arminian, says, “The redemption of man by Christ was certainly not an afterthought brought in upon man’s apostasy; it was a provision, and when man fell he found justice hand in hand with mercy.”
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.How can sin enter the world through the free will actions of man IF God caused him to sin, as the determinist Calvinist argues? More importantly, does that position violate James 1:13, which states:
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.Yes, that idea does violate James. That’s a major part of why I do not call myself a Calvinist.
Deterministic Calvinists argue that God is really the cause of all actions, and then back away when they realize that they are in essence saying that God made Adam sin. The Arminian view argues that God knows everything that can happen, including both the unrealized possibilities and the realized free will actions of man, and that God can and does freely intervene and work in both spheres. In such a view, God can create man with a free will, put him in an environment that is good, and then know ahead of time that there is the possibility man will sin and have a redemptive plan already in place before sin enters the human race.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[James K] 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.Bold Added
If Calvin were alive today, he would wish the Giants good luck versus the Patriots.
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.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jay C.]Jay,[edingess]Wait a second - where does it say anywhere in the Scripture that it was God’s will for Adam to sin and bring spiritual death into the world?[James K] Jay, to your point, I think there is more to it. Adam would have been doing the will of God.The secret things belong to the Lord. If this logic is permitted to stand, then sin does not exist. There is the will/plan of God and the will/revealed of God in which God commands men. Just as Judas and the men God predetermined to kill Christ sinned by violating God’s revealed will, so to did Adam.
It was God’s will plan salvation before creation; can’t have salvation without sin.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Jay C.] If my understanding of Ed’s position is right, he’s arguing that Adam essentially “sinned” because God declared it to happen. That’s a problem - for how could Adam be held liable for sinning when he had no ability to choose not to sin?Jay,
Furthermore, what’s the point in praying when God already knows and has perfectly foreordained everything that will occur?
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.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
One quick thought:
Responsibility does not demand ability. Or, lack of ability does not turn us into machines. There are quite a few passages that tell of God Himself causing things to happen. Abimelech and Sarah. Baalam. Judas. Our own salvation. Any prophesy.
Responsibility does not demand ability. Or, lack of ability does not turn us into machines. There are quite a few passages that tell of God Himself causing things to happen. Abimelech and Sarah. Baalam. Judas. Our own salvation. Any prophesy.
The idea that because God knows something, it must occur is theologically problematic on several levels and it diminishes omniscience to only cover actual events, not all knowledge - or else how could God know what is a possibility?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, speaking of problematic, you are introducing the idea that God is not omnscient because his knowledge might be wrong.Yes, he knows both what will occur and what could occur. I do not mean to say that because God knows all three possibilities, all three will occur, and appreciate the clarification. What I am arguing against is the deterministic theory that some Calvinists, like Boettner, hold to.
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)?
Chip, I see what you’re saying and am sorry that I’ve misunderstood Ed, but Lorraine Boetter does make God’s foreknowledge causative, and I stand by what I wrote before when I quoted his work. It is problematic for God to know that Man will sin and then put him in a situation where he must sin to bring about the plan of God.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.]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.”
Yes, he knows both what will occur and what could occur. I do not mean to say that because God knows all three possibilities, all three will occur, and appreciate the clarification. What I am arguing against is the deterministic theory that some Calvinists, like Boettner, hold to.
Chip, I see what you’re saying and am sorry that I’ve misunderstood Ed, but Lorraine Boetter does make God’s foreknowledge causative, and I stand by what I wrote before when I quoted his work. It is problematic for God to know that Man will sin and then put him in a situation where he must sin to bring about the plan of God.
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.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Jay C.]Boettner’s views are in accord with all that I have been arguing to be fair to him. He says, “Yet God in no way compelled man to fall. He simply withheld that underserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen, which grace He was under no obligation to bestow…He (Adam) acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty. [Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg 235]Jay, speaking of problematic, you are introducing the idea that God is not omnscient because his knowledge might be wrong.Yes, he knows both what will occur and what could occur. I do not mean to say that because God knows all three possibilities, all three will occur, and appreciate the clarification. What I am arguing against is the deterministic theory that some Calvinists, like Boettner, hold to.
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)?
Chip, I see what you’re saying and am sorry that I’ve misunderstood Ed, but Lorraine Boetter does make God’s foreknowledge causative, and I stand by what I wrote before when I quoted his work. It is problematic for God to know that Man will sin and then put him in a situation where he must sin to bring about the plan of God.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
[Chip Van Emmerik]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.[James K] 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.Bold Added
If Calvin were alive today, he would wish the Giants good luck versus the Patriots.
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.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Jonathan Edwards tried to make the case that man will do whatever his greatest desire is. This is one reason why Piper is always pushing that realm of a person. For those who don’t know, he loves Edwards. However, if that is true, then where did the desire come from to sin? If you answer Satan, that doesn’t solve anything, because that also was a desire of his. Where did the desire originate in Satan? In fact, where did the knowledge of not perfect obedience originate from? Ed, you are arguing a logical case, not a biblical one. Well, logical until it gets messy, then it is a mystery. Let us work this back.
Knowledge of sin
1. Adam, created very good with the ability to sin but no knowledge of it.
2. Satan, created very good with the ability to sin but no knowledge of it.
3. Perfect holiness without the shadow of sin, but possessing perfect knowledge.
According to compatabilists, everything happens by decree. So either God gave the desire to sin within Satan, and then Satan did the same to Adam BY DECREE or there is an alternative. If you want your cake, you must at the same time be willing to eat it. This would mean that the very desire to sin did not come from Adam, nor from Satan, but God. Fast ball down the middle, a big swing knocks it over the wall…into foul territory. Big swing yes, but it didn’t land in fair territory. We know that is a foul ball because one of the rules of this game is:
James 1:13
No one undergoing a trial should say, “I am being tempted by God.” For God is not tempted by evil, and He Himself doesn’t tempt anyone.
Knowledge of sin
1. Adam, created very good with the ability to sin but no knowledge of it.
2. Satan, created very good with the ability to sin but no knowledge of it.
3. Perfect holiness without the shadow of sin, but possessing perfect knowledge.
According to compatabilists, everything happens by decree. So either God gave the desire to sin within Satan, and then Satan did the same to Adam BY DECREE or there is an alternative. If you want your cake, you must at the same time be willing to eat it. This would mean that the very desire to sin did not come from Adam, nor from Satan, but God. Fast ball down the middle, a big swing knocks it over the wall…into foul territory. Big swing yes, but it didn’t land in fair territory. We know that is a foul ball because one of the rules of this game is:
James 1:13
No one undergoing a trial should say, “I am being tempted by God.” For God is not tempted by evil, and He Himself doesn’t tempt anyone.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
There was never a time God did not completely know all things. There are no order of decrees. Talk about speculation…
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Mostly I have been interacting with compatibilism beliefs. I would like to ask the following of those who hold to that belief:
1. Does permission factor at all in your beliefs? If yes, is it because God decreed that He would be permissible?
2. Since nothing happens except by decree, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God “passes over” the nonelect based on their own wickedness? It gives the impression of conditional reprobation.
3. Do you agree with the following quote of Calvin where he says compatabilism is foolish:
1. Does permission factor at all in your beliefs? If yes, is it because God decreed that He would be permissible?
2. Since nothing happens except by decree, how do you reconcile that with the fact that God “passes over” the nonelect based on their own wickedness? It gives the impression of conditional reprobation.
3. Do you agree with the following quote of Calvin where he says compatabilism is foolish:
It is easy to conclude how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice by the suggestion that evils come to be not by His will, but merely by His permission. Of course, so far as they are evils… I admit they are not pleasing to God. But it is quite a frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, which Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.taken from Calvin’s “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[edingess] Boettner’s views are in accord with all that I have been arguing to be fair to him. He says, “Yet God in no way compelled man to fall. He simply withheld that underserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen, which grace He was under no obligation to bestow…He (Adam) acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty. [Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg 235]Ed,
I appreciate what you’re doing and saying, but I do feel as though there’s a bit of double-talk going on here. Boettner says that man was ‘not compelled to fall’, but then admits that it is a ‘great mystery’ why God caused him to sin and declared that it must occur. Read again what he wrote and I quoted above:
And if the crucifixion of Christ, or His offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin, was in the eternal plan, then plainly the fall of Adam and all other sins which made that sacrifice necessary were in the plan, no matter how undesirable a part of that plan they may have been.That’s part of why I quoted so much of what I did - because Boettner will go that far but can’t actually bring himself to say that he needs to.
History in all its details, even the most minute, is but the unfolding of the eternal purposes of God. His decrees are not successively formed as the emergency arises, but are all parts of one all-comprehending plan, and we should never think of Him suddenly evolving a plan or doing something which He had not thought of before…
…Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God. We are told that Christ was “foreknown indeed (as a sacrifice for sin) before the foundation of the world,” I Peter 1:20]. Paul speaks of “the eternal purpose” which was purposed in Jesus Christ our Lord, Eph. 3:1. The writer of Hebrews refers to “the blood of an eternal covenant,” 13:20. And since the plan of redemption is thus traced back into eternity, the plan to permit man to fall into the sin from which he was thus to be redeemed must also extend back into eternity; otherwise there would have been no occasion for redemption. In fact the plan for the whole course of the world’s events, including the fall, redemption, and all other events, was before God in its completeness before He ever brought the creation into existence; and He deliberately ordered it that this series of events, and not some other series, should become actual.
Also - if Boettner is right and is not being contradictory, did he believe in reprobation? If a Calvinist does hold to reprobation, the problems that they have are the same - God has divinely chosen people to go to Hell and not be saved, yet they cannot have any possible hope of repenting. Yes, I know that God hardens some hearts and wills, but I don’t think that we can teach reprobation based on those (few) cases.
Furthermore, the idea that Adam ‘acted freely as if there had been no decree’ would seem to contradict the entire theory that if God knows something, then it must occur, which is why I opened by discussing Omniscience and not Free Will.
Oh, and by the way - did anyone ever find any Scriptures that expressly declare that Adam sinned as a part of God’s plan? I’m still waiting on that. It’s a nice idea but one that I still can’t find explicit Scriptural backing for.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[James K]James,
1. You made the point that God is the first cause of EVERYTHING and still somehow not the author of sin.
I know I’m coming late to this discussion, but you seem to be equating the concept of being the first cause of all things with being the author of all things (specifically sin). Can you give some justification for this, as this phrase is not a scriptural phrase, but rather a phrase of systematic theology, and I cannot find any context where the two phrases could be equated.
My understanding is that “to author X” means to “use direct authority to bring X about”, which is why it is not a contradiction when the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, Section 1 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; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin….Can you shed some light on this by supplying a context where to author and to be the first cause of is the same?
Thanks,
Charles
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.
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.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] 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.You’re saying you can’t see the difference between being the original cause of a thing and being the one who used your authority to bring an action about? God is the original cause of all things, however, every action has only one author. This is the sense in which the word author is being used in the systematic theology. If you want to use a different definition, you’ll have to rewrite all the statements.
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.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
It’s definitely possible I’m misunderstanding the nature of the argument here. You are definitely discussing things that interest me greatly, and I’d love to join in… I sent you a PM.
[James K] 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.Yes, that is exactly what they say, and it’s one of the reasons why I can’t go down “the Calvinist road”; I would like to see some kind of Calvinist rebuttal to the charge instead of “The secret things belong to the Lord” or some such.
That’s why I cited Boettner; other Calvinists that I have read claim that as well but won’t say it as explicitly as Boettner (and apparently Calvin) do.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Let me try to restate my point here.
You keep arguing that first cause and author are identical. What I am saying is there is a difference between the two and it is relevant and scriptural.
It is similar to the difference between me picking up a knife and cutting a vegetable and me actually being the knife that cut the vegetable. If you say that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two, then there is no discussion to be had here because we do not believe the word “difference” means the same thing.
If however, what you want to argue is that either of those two scenarios make me identically responsible for the resulting action, then what we
are really arguing about is the difference between what God can do and what man can do. You seem very well read, I assume that you are familiar
with I Kings 22.
And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD
sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his
right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab,
that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner,
and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and
stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said
unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt
persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
(1Ki 22:19-22)
I cannot righteously tell a servant to go and lie to confound my enemy, but it is clear that God can. In the same way, I do not let my 2 year old son play with knives, for the express reason that he does not have the capacity to ensure that any action performed with that knife will result in good. But one day he will. I don’t believe it is ridiculous to say that one day when the bride of Christ has been made perfect and has been joined to her husband that it is reasonable to assume that she will be able to order a spirit in a way that is identical to this passage and to ensure that every result of that interaction brings glory and honor to her husband.
But the question is what is the real issue you are pursuing? Is it that you don’t believe that the distinction between the two insulates God from “doing evil”, and if so, I would point you to I Kings. Is it that man cannot have a free will in this scenario? Or am I still missing something?
You keep arguing that first cause and author are identical. What I am saying is there is a difference between the two and it is relevant and scriptural.
It is similar to the difference between me picking up a knife and cutting a vegetable and me actually being the knife that cut the vegetable. If you say that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two, then there is no discussion to be had here because we do not believe the word “difference” means the same thing.
If however, what you want to argue is that either of those two scenarios make me identically responsible for the resulting action, then what we
are really arguing about is the difference between what God can do and what man can do. You seem very well read, I assume that you are familiar
with I Kings 22.
And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD
sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his
right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab,
that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner,
and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and
stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said
unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying
spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt
persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
(1Ki 22:19-22)
I cannot righteously tell a servant to go and lie to confound my enemy, but it is clear that God can. In the same way, I do not let my 2 year old son play with knives, for the express reason that he does not have the capacity to ensure that any action performed with that knife will result in good. But one day he will. I don’t believe it is ridiculous to say that one day when the bride of Christ has been made perfect and has been joined to her husband that it is reasonable to assume that she will be able to order a spirit in a way that is identical to this passage and to ensure that every result of that interaction brings glory and honor to her husband.
But the question is what is the real issue you are pursuing? Is it that you don’t believe that the distinction between the two insulates God from “doing evil”, and if so, I would point you to I Kings. Is it that man cannot have a free will in this scenario? Or am I still missing something?
I cannot righteously tell a servant to go and lie to confound my enemy, but it is clear that God can.
[James 1:13] Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.So you do believe that God can (and does) command demons to sin against Him?
That passage, by the way, is not causative. It is the demonic spirit that offers to lie, and God who says that he will be persuasive and prevail and to go. God never explicitly tells the demon to lie to Ahab.
By the way, who or what is the demonic spirit persuasive over? It is not referring to Ahab’s decision making ability?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I think, along the same lines Charles has posted, God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in light of immanent destruction would be another example. God uses sinful tendencies, be it a lying spirit, or Pharaoh, or Satan in the Garden, to accomplish His Divine purposes. He plans and orchestrates each event without ever coercing someone into doing something against their will. He is the Sovereign First Cause without being guilty of sin.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
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.
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.
[Jay] That passage, by the way, is not causative.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.
[Jay C.]Jay, I would caution you against lumping this together as the Calvinist road. There are too many varieties on this issue to fit with one soteriological viewpoint.[James K] 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.Yes, that is exactly what they say, and it’s one of the reasons why I can’t go down “the Calvinist road”; I would like to see some kind of Calvinist rebuttal to the charge instead of “The secret things belong to the Lord” or some such.
That’s why I cited Boettner; other Calvinists that I have read claim that as well but won’t say it as explicitly as Boettner (and apparently Calvin) do.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Jay C.]Matthew 4:1 (NASB95)I cannot righteously tell a servant to go and lie to confound my enemy, but it is clear that God can.[James 1:13] Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.So you do believe that God can (and does) command demons to sin against Him?
That passage, by the way, is not causative. It is the demonic spirit that offers to lie, and God who says that he will be persuasive and prevail and to go. God never explicitly tells the demon to lie to Ahab.
By the way, who or what is the demonic spirit persuasive over? It is not referring to Ahab’s decision making ability?
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.
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth. III John 4
Charles, you said,
1. I am not sure you want to compare Adam to the knife. That would essentially prove my point. The knife cannot cut the vegetable on its own. It can only do what I want it to.
2. There is a difference in being the first cause and the author, or responsible person. That is not being debated. It is a difference without a distiction on this point though. The compatibilist wants God as the first cause while keeping His hands clean. All the blame goes to Adam. That just doesn’t work. If all the blame is rightly on Adam because he acted independently of God, then that doesn’t square with God as first cause unless God decreed for Adam to sin. Again, if sin is setting your will against God’s, and God willed for Adam to eat the fruit, then Adam did EXACTLY what God wanted and obeyed God’s will. So Adam’s sin was not sin at all. Calvin knew this and is why he called this foolish.
It is similar to the difference between me picking up a knife and cutting a vegetable and me actually being the knife that cut the vegetable. If you say that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two, then there is no discussion to be had here because we do not believe the word “difference” means the same thing.Just a couple of thoughts here.
1. I am not sure you want to compare Adam to the knife. That would essentially prove my point. The knife cannot cut the vegetable on its own. It can only do what I want it to.
2. There is a difference in being the first cause and the author, or responsible person. That is not being debated. It is a difference without a distiction on this point though. The compatibilist wants God as the first cause while keeping His hands clean. All the blame goes to Adam. That just doesn’t work. If all the blame is rightly on Adam because he acted independently of God, then that doesn’t square with God as first cause unless God decreed for Adam to sin. Again, if sin is setting your will against God’s, and God willed for Adam to eat the fruit, then Adam did EXACTLY what God wanted and obeyed God’s will. So Adam’s sin was not sin at all. Calvin knew this and is why he called this foolish.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Chip Van Emmerik] I think, along the same lines Charles has posted, God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in light of immanent destruction would be another example. God uses sinful tendencies, be it a lying spirit, or Pharaoh, or Satan in the Garden, to accomplish His Divine purposes. He plans and orchestrates each event without ever coercing someone into doing something against their will. He is the Sovereign First Cause without being guilty of sin.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.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Discussion