Origins of Evil and Will of Man

1. Who is guilty of murder, the hitman or the person who hired him? Both right? Saying God caused sin but kept his hands clean is a weak attempt to harmonize sovereignty and holiness. Therefore you have to make it a mystery. It isn’t a mystery, and your view impugns God’s holiness.

2. I have not given you my view, simply that I do not agree with the doublespeak of compatibilism. I have posted the thoughts of RC Sproul Jr and Sr on this issue. Sr says he doesn’t know, and Jr blames God.

3. God is never frustrated in my view.

You presume that God has the same motive for the event as the real murderer. First of all, God can take whatever life He please because as God it is His right. Since no one is innocent, God can rightly judge whomever whenever. Personally I think this a poor analogy. Unless you are a consistent Calvinist, I will show that God is frustrated in your view. You just refuse to admit it.

Let’s begin with a simple question:

Can anything exist outside of God’s decree? Put another way, can anyting exist outside of God willing it to exist? What say you? Please explain your answer.

Second question:

Is God depentent or absolutely indepent?

1. Who is guilty of murder, the hitman or the person who hired him? Both right? Saying God caused sin but kept his hands clean is a weak attempt to harmonize sovereignty and holiness. Therefore you have to make it a mystery. It isn’t a mystery, and your view impugns God’s holiness.

2. I have not given you my view, simply that I do not agree with the doublespeak of compatibilism. I have posted the thoughts of RC Sproul Jr and Sr on this issue. Sr says he doesn’t know, and Jr blames God.

3. God is never frustrated in my view.

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)

According to you, that God is absolutely sovereign and the first cause of everything, then the fact that there even is a fall means that God wanted it to happen. That is unless you think God didn’t want it to happen and think God is frustrated. So God wanted the fall, Satan wanted the fall, and man wanted the fall.

Going back to the hitman analogy: the money guy wanted it, the hitman wants it. Who is guilty? Both. Wait, are you saying God didn’t intend for the fall to happen? I don’t think you meant that at all.

By the way, what sin did Adam commit when God purpose to make him fall in your view?

To answer your questions:

1. No.

2. God is absolutely independent. I believe in the free will of God.

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.

Ed, so much going on, hard to keep track of.

1. You made the point that God is the first cause of EVERYTHING and still somehow not the author of sin. That isn’t a mystery, that is doubletalk and false. My point is that you do not rightly understand sovereignty, as your view is contrary to revelation. Calling it a mystery doesn’t change anything.

2. You were saying that God has the right to judge whoever he wants. I asked what sin Adam committed that required judgment from God, since God is the one, in your view, that caused sin. I am trying to unpack the doubletalk I keep reading from you.

3. Why do you keep talking about WL Craig? You are the only one talking about him.

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.

In both of those accounts, the scriptures reveal that God was the one behind the event and even explains how it came about. The fall of man though is NEVER said to have been the idea or work of God. Satan was the first to sin and then tempted man to do the same. To say that God was the first cause of sin is heretical, but it must be said to fit your system. In other words, you affirm it because of your position and not revelation, yet you keep trying to say that revelation must guide us.

James,

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

That depends what is meant by behind. Those like Ed must affirm that God’s sovereignty is the cause of sin or else throw their arms up and call it a mystery. What I mean by behind is that simply God is truly sovereign. Sovereignty has to do with God’s rule or right to rule. Neither Ed nor I deny that. I do not believe that sovereignty means that God makes everything happen. Therefore, I can affirm that God is both sovereign and also not the author of sin. Ed and compatibilists want to affirm both of those things, but can’t without impugning God’s holiness.

[James K] That depends what is meant by behind. Those like Ed must affirm that God’s sovereignty is the cause of sin or else throw their arms up and call it a mystery. What I mean by behind is that simply God is truly sovereign. Sovereignty has to do with God’s rule or right to rule. Neither Ed nor I deny that. I do not believe that sovereignty means that God makes everything happen. Therefore, I can affirm that God is both sovereign and also not the author of sin. Ed and compatibilists want to affirm both of those things, but can’t without impugning God’s holiness.

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

Who is denying that God rules over everything? Not me.

[James K] In both of those accounts, the scriptures reveal that God was the one behind the event and even explains how it came about. The fall of man though is NEVER said to have been the idea or work of God. Satan was the first to sin and then tempted man to do the same. To say that God was the first cause of sin is heretical, but it must be said to fit your system. In other words, you affirm it because of your position and not revelation, yet you keep trying to say that revelation must guide us.

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?

Ed,

1. I don’t believe you are malicious in your understanding of God. I truly think you are sincere that you want to believe revelation. I find your attempt to harmonize the truth to be lacking, severely. It isn’t personal.

2. If Adam fell by God’s decree, then he did it only because God wanted it (secretly or otherwise). So Adam had no chance not to do it. That would be…compulsory. That is more than not tempting him, something God cannot do. So in your view, God can’t tempt, but he can make.

3. You don’t know my view. You simply resort to standard reformedspeak on this. In my view, God is in complete control over all things. The difference is in how He chooses to exercise control, not that he controls. It would do you some good to not think of yourself as part of the last line of defense protecting God. Honestly, if you read more than what previous calvinists say about something, you might avoid the pitfalls of such off base statements. Actually, it comes down to revelation. It isn’t an issue about chance or control. Chance is not biblical at all. Even classic arminianism affirms absolutely foreknowledge, removing chance. This is what I am talking about with off base statements.

4. I am not trying to get God off the hook in either case. Sorry to disappoint. Maybe don’t read into what I said your own limited understanding of the issue.

[James K] Ed,

1. I don’t believe you are malicious in your understanding of God. I truly think you are sincere that you want to believe revelation. I find your attempt to harmonize the truth to be lacking, severely. It isn’t personal.

2. If Adam fell by God’s decree, then he did it only because God wanted it (secretly or otherwise). So Adam had no chance not to do it. That would be…compulsory. That is more than not tempting him, something God cannot do. So in your view, God can’t tempt, but he can make.

3. You don’t know my view. You simply resort to standard reformedspeak on this. In my view, God is in complete control over all things. The difference is in how He chooses to exercise control, not that he controls. It would do you some good to not think of yourself as part of the last line of defense protecting God. Honestly, if you read more than what previous calvinists say about something, you might avoid the pitfalls of such off base statements. Actually, it comes down to revelation. It isn’t an issue about chance or control. Chance is not biblical at all. Even classic arminianism affirms absolutely foreknowledge, removing chance. This is what I am talking about with off base statements.

4. I am not trying to get God off the hook in either case. Sorry to disappoint. Maybe don’t read into what I said your own limited understanding of the issue.

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.

Ed, the bigger this gets, the harder it is to continue. I will try to be brief just in response on some things. Maybe we can pick up specific points.

1. By me saying, “it isn’t personal,” I simply meant that I have no personal disdain toward you. I wasn’t meaning it would be personal for you to say the same to me. Let me say again, the vast majority of people I like on a theological basis are compatabilists. I do wonder though if they are that by choice because they have spent a lot of time studying it or if it is just the path of least resistance and kind of the assumed position.

2. About coercing Adam, this is a point of disagreement. If I accept your premise that God brings about all that he decrees, and he only does what he wants to do, then the fall was something God wanted and decreed. Adam was not made fallen, but very good. Adam could not, not fall. He had to fall. Adam did not originate the desire to fall then. God desired the fall. Adam was actually acting then according to God’s will. If sin is acting against God’s will, then you have two competing wills of God. You have the will to make the fall and the revealed will to not eat from the wrong tree. Adam could not, not sin if that is the truth of the situation. I find that to be irrational, and not the best understanding of the fall. Since we have to harmonize all truth, the above cannot be reconciled. This is why compatabilists prefer to leave it alone to mystery. This is why I quoted RC Sproul Sr, who said as much.

3. My point from the beginning has been an examination of compatabilism.

4. My comment about your limited knowledge did not refer to the subject at hand, sovereignty, but perhaps exposure to other ways of thinking, which you quickly condemned as false. There is a difference between being willfully ignorant and simply ignorant because you have not studied as well. I am certainly ignorant on a great many issues. When we can, don’t we both try to remedy that? That was all I meant. Again, I hope that didn’t offend, as that was not my goal. Simply typing discussions can be difficult to communicate all that. I want you to know that in love I give you the benefit of the doubt on everything you say that it was not intended as mean. I enjoy academic discussions and so try to remove emotions best I can.

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.

I find that to be irrational, and not the best understanding of the fall.

This may be the crux of the difference. You are judging something to be irrational, but you haven’t shown why your understanding should be trusted. Further, you are being driven by logic, rather than by revelation which I find to be problematic. We do have a duty to study the Scriptures to reconcile things, but IMO we should stop short of rejecting clear statements because we can’t fit them into our system.

1. The Bible says that God decrees all things and no one can stop him.
   
   
2. The Bible says that God is not the author of sin.
   
   
   
   Why can we not simply accept that and understand that our finitude is the problem, not God or his revelation.
   
   Let me ask you this: Did God know prior to Adam’s sin that Adam was going to sin? If yes, then was Adam able to not sin?
   
   

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.

James, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that is not logical that God can be sovereignly decree all things and still not be the cause or author of sin. Your statement that you find this irrational seems to point to a conclusion based on logic, since logic and rationality are very closely related.

I think the compatibilist position is based on allowing apparent contradictions that on their face appear illogical. In other words, they are willing to affirm something that seems illogical because they see them both as revealed in Scripture. It is a “mystery” precisely because it appears to be illogical but can’t be because both are true statements. Where say you the statement “is contrary” I say it only appears contrary because of our finitude. It cannot be contrary because it would be impossible.

To the point of the question, I believe you earlier argued that if God decreed Adam to sin, that Adam could not not fall. My point in bringing up the issue of knowledge is that you are in the same place: since God knew Adam was going to fall, he could not not fall. He had to, and it seems to me that in your view (or at least the view you seem to be presenting) God is still complicit because he did not allow Adam to have an alternative.

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.

The hard determinists think compatibilists are essentially arminian for DENYING that God caused Adam to sin. Calvinist on calvinist crime.

Perhaps, but irrelevant, IMO. I don’t see how calling it “Calvinist on Calvinist” crime is either important or helpful. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians are monolithic so everyone takes issue at some point with something.

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

But I think some do not wrestle with the implications of it very well. So saying “He could not not fall” is not particularly relevant to the issue of cause. He could not not fall in either scenario.

Here’s a follow up question: How does God’s knowledge relate to his decree? Are they co-extensive? Is one logically prior to the other? Are they completely unrelated?

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.

James,

I would like to see your response to my comments around the efficacy of God’s decree and cause. Please respond. Sooner or later, you have to start defending something, otherwise I am going to conclude you don’t like how anyone positions the fall but you don’t have a position of your own. You say your view of God is orthodox and I am contending that if it rejects God’s efficacious decree, it is either unorthodox or far more irrational than any apparent contradictions in compatiblism. The apparent contradictions are no less glaring in the trinity or the hypostatic union. Do you accept these doctrines as unquestionably certain?

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!

[James K]

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.

…

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.

How do the two events, Adam sinning and wicked people murdering Christ, differ? Is God the first cause of one but not the other? Or is he the first cause of neither?

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.

Ed, I will get to the efficacious degree soon. However, the Hypostatic union and the trinity are all based on revelation that does not cause a blight on God’s character.

Any theological position that contradicts who God is, not just what He does, is false. I reject compatibilism. It is my belief that God becomes guilty within the structure. While there are a great many things I do not understand, I cannot just assign this to the realm of mystery. God’s character is clear.

Let me say again though that most people I like theologically do hold to it. I am content to say that I strongly disagree with the conclusions and do not proceed to understand the person and work of God from the same POV as compatibilists.

Ed, I affirm the following:

1. God does whatever He wants.

2. God does whatever He decreed.

I deny the following:

1. That God left anything to chance.

2. That God is thwarted or frustrated.

I am willing to concede that a mystery exists. The mystery though is not in a harmony of first cause and sin. The mystery, as I understand revelation, is in understanding God’s knowledge of all things. God does whatever He wants to do. God has exhaustive and perfect knowledge of everything. That is something we cannot completely understand or envision.

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.

[James K] 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.

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.

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.

[James K] 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.

Have you not admitted as much by saying that God willed Judas’ betrayal of Christ, while also admitting in so doing he sinned and in so doing brought about his own just damnation? There is a difference in stating what I have stated and in saying that God acts directly by coercion in such cases as Judas and saying that God through secondary means brings about such things. How God’s efficacious decree worked in the downfall of Lucifer remains mysterious. But we know that to say that evil entered the world apart from God’s decree gives us a god that is wholly different from the one Scripture reveals. The God in Scripture is absolutely independent and He does whatever He pleases. What He foreknows, He determines. What He has determined, He foreknew.

The verse about God not tempting men is there to prevent antinomianism which is something James was clearly concerned with. It is the heartbeat of his book. Hyper Calvinism takes godly living to the extreme of saying, “oh well, why should I bother with trying to please God since He determined everything anyhow, even my own sin. I will just sin as I please.” Such thinking raises serious concerns about that person’s faith as James clearly points out.

Jay, it is the necessary conclusion based on certain assumptions.

Ed, what I affirmed and then denied does not have to lead to the same understanding as what you provided. So no, I did not affirm that God has 2 competing/contradicting wills. That conclusion is very dangerous.

[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?

Furthermore, what’s the point in praying when God already knows and has perfectly foreordained everything that will occur?

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.

[Jay C.]

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

So then God commands us to ask for things even though He knows the request will be refused? He basically tells us to ask so that He can reject those requests? What kind of a God is this?

The Bible’s pretty clear that we’re supposed to ask God for things:

[Matthew 7:7-11]

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Jay, are you saying everything we ask of God comes to fruition?

My points are: 1) God tells us to pray, so we pray 2) God may or may not answer our prayers.