Calvinism and Free Will

Please finish the sentence, and you'll see that you're wrong.

If God CHOOSES to allow man to make a decision then God is still in control OF THAT DECISION.

If God chooses to allow man to make a decision, then God is not in control of that decision.

I suppose the one exception is if the decision is a foregone conclusion. So if it makes you any happier, you could always say God "allows" us to decide to go to hell, since - given the choice - that's what we'll always decide.

 

This is a bit disturbing regarding its implications. What you are saying is that God really DIDN'T want Adam and Eve to stay innocent. Are you aware at this point your gross departure from orthodoxy? As well the implied accusation against God? Never mind comparing the wisdom of your determinations with that of Gods.

I do believe your view of Sovereignty has resulted in a very injurious (to both yourself and your doctrine) position on related doctrines.

But in case I am overstating my concern, can you provide (and will you) an orthodox Reformed or Calvinist Bible teacher that echoes this case against God you are making regarding the placing of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the prohibition to eating it as evidence that God DID NOT want Adam and Eve to stay innocent?

 

Who cares what teachers say? The Bible is what matters. Regardless, they're called supralapsarians. I'm sure you can find some on your own.

 

I wasn't talking about Adam and Eve I was talking about God. You stated his foreordination of their actions was based on what He knew they would do. This is a significant departure from your arguments about the nature of the decrees of God. Here you place the decree of God regarding the actions of Adam and Eve as conditional to what He knows they would do. Your very statement denies your view as to what Sovereignty is.

 

We should care what teachers say to the extent that the Bible makes clear we do have those who are novices and those recognized and qualified to be teachers and we should honor them. So what they say, may not be your final conclusion, but respect for their teaching and the authority of their word should carry some weight.

In fact it is the body of received doctrine that is taught and recognized that we measure against for heresy and unorthodox or immature theology. And it is in those teachers we find that. Surely you don't stand alone against such a body and declare now them all IRRELEVANT and your thoughts premier. Surely you don't find yourself in that unfortunate place.

But never minding for your sake the teachers, DARE YOU answer the question I will pose again?

*I don't really believe you are going to follow up the question with the obvious yes or no though those are the only two choices. But since you stated:

I figured a second opportunity to revisit this statement, consider its implications and either retract it, modify it or confirm it was warranted since it is such a gross departure from the body of doctrine and teachings held Baptists, and Protestants in general.

 

It's tied in with the primary and secondary causes. I generally hate analogies, but perhaps one would do here. I can show my cat chicken and tell it not to touch it. If I put the chicken in the refrigerator, I know my cat can't go into my refrigerator to get it. But if I leave it out, I can tell you what the cat will do. It's not just a matter of foreknowledge, it's a matter of creating a situation where you will get the desired result. Yet the cat is still responsible for doing it. (Well, a cat just works on instinct, but you get the idea.)

 

I believe God planned for sin to enter the world. Is that what you want to hear? I don't know what God WANTED, since God's ultimate desires are something to which I am not privvy. But I would have to assume that at least PART of God's desires were for sin to enter the world. It is all for His glory. And it works.

I know I'm not the only supralapsarian here. Maybe it is your goal to get us all banned. That would be a shame, I would miss our conversations SO much.

 

So, you do believe that God is the author of sin???

 

Oh no, I certainly don't want anyone banned. Who wants to hear the echo of their own thoughts all day? UGH!

But this is why we are here, to debate, discuss and challenge and hopefully function as a source of illumination to one another. None of us can be right all the time so when and where we aren't the challenges and debates of others service us in this manner.

So with that cleared, I encourage you to reconsider the idea that PART of God's desire is for sin to enter in the world. Consider the implications of this claim in light of the essence of God. Yes, God certainly (as in the case of Joseph so well illustrated, "You meant it for evil but God meant it for good") takes sin of all kinds and through that accomplishes His will. But the idea that God must WANT it is foreign to His essence.

I do understand the seeming tension in the decrees of God, the reality of God knowing sin would enter into the world in eternity past yet proceeding with the creation of humanity. But concluding that because this knowledge was present at the time of the divine decrees regarding human history is equal to God wanting it is not necessary to preserve the complete and proper understanding of the reality and function of Divine Sovereignty in its fullest extent.

 

I've said this many times. I don't know why it seems to be a surprise now. God is the ultimate cause of EVERYTHING. God did not force anyone to sin, so God is not the primary cause [author] of sin. But He knew, and He planned. It couldn't have happened any other way. And I, for one, praise God for it, because it is all to His glory. I wouldn't know anything about His mercy if it wasn't for my sin.

 

I don't think it's foreign to His character, at all. As I've said, it's all part of His glory. No sin, no mercy. No sin, no way to communicate His righteousness and wrath against unrighteousness. We wouldn't KNOW God's glory nearly as well as He deserves if it weren't for sin.

It's all right there in black and white.

 

I see absolutely no corridor leading from this passage to the conclusion that God WANTED sin to enter into the world.

In fact if anything the phrase "endured with long suffering the vessels of wrath" intimates God using sin in His plan but not WANTING IT or PLANNING it.

 

Then you're ignoring the preceding verses.

The whole point is that "The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."

 

For what part? Dead in trespasses and sins?

I don't really need a verse to show Adam and Eve weren't right?

 

You have come an extensive way from the claim that God WANTED Adam and Eve to sin by planting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and prohibiting its eating and allowing Satan's presence in the garden to this verse in attempting to attach it to that view.

The context is totally foreign to your initial supposition. But since we are here your case now is that it in some way supports God wanting sin. You claim I ignored the preceding verse, well YOU failed to post it in your initial use. But let's look at the context, which isn't determined here but even earlier in the chapter and not here.

Paul is referring to the Israelites, and here the context is referring the subsequent nations/people of Jacob and Esau.

The context is the choice by God for the line of Jacob to be the people of God. There is nothing here about God wanting any sin. Certainly the presence of God's Sovereignty regarding His purposes is present but you are still quite a far cry from any relationship or connection to the claim God wanted sin to enter in the world.

It is my view though that we are now departing from the substance of your claim with text that fail even in the most elementary fashion to support your view in the absence of any hermeneutics justifying its use.

Whatever you feel you need to hold to is your choice but extreme views such as God WANTING ADAM and EVE to sin and implicating Him in this truly are a departure from orthodox Baptist and Protestant doctrine and I strongly recommend you re-examining this sentiment.

 

So, is what you're saying that God is an idiot for setting up the situation the way He did? Was God incapable of protecting Adam and Eve from sinning? Or was He simply ignorant of the fact that Adam and Eve would sin? In other words, which unorthodox alternative do you prefer - the idiot God, the incompetent God, or open theism?

 

I am sorry you are reduced to this kind of dialogue and this kind of hyper-defensive and reactionary response. This really isn't necessary. Frankly I sense you recognize some severe problems in your theology and this is leading you to this kind of frustration and manifested in your response.

If I recall you are the one that implied that unless God set it up on purpose for Adam and Eve to sin then God was the stupid one:

Are you aware of the judgment you have cast against God here? Here you state that even YOU know that if you had wanted Adam adn Eve to have reamined innocent you would NOT have planted a forbidden tree and now allow Satan in there and since God did allow it He is Stupid if His reason wasn't so Adam and Eve would sin. Brother, I once again encourage you to re-examine the rashness and the inappropriateness of your theological path.

Maybe later, tomorrow or even on another thread we can resume the debate but for now there is a boundary of respect necessary for it to continue properly and I don't see it staying within that boundary in light of this.

 

In other words, you have no alternative that you're willing to admit. I'm not surprised. I've pretty much covered the possibilities. In your misguided attempt to defend the honor of God, you have painted yourself into a corner. God's honor needs no defending. He can, and does what He pleases.

You free-willers are all alike. The moment you get stumped you cry, "hostility!" and run away.
.