Overcoming

[Anthony Pritchard]

Stop and think for a minute about how this thread started and what was said in the first post.

Was it God's will that the Lamb was slain? Then he "approved" it I assume.
Now, if the Lamb was slain it was necessary that Adam sin. Is that going too far? Yet was it God's will that Adam sin? What Calvinists say is that it was a necessity and therefore "decreed" that Adam sin - yet, it was Adam's free choice to sin and it was a violation of God's will.

So I would answer you that if God is all powerful and all knowing, and it is a fact that he allows people to die in their sins - then it must be true that there is a sense in which he approves that happening. Now, I would agree with you if you say that some Calvinists go too far in that they seem to think that God is equally happy that this happens as he is when men come in faith and repentance. I believe that God really does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked and is unhappy when they spurn his grace. But in his wisdom and sovereignty he has set limits and exercises his sovereignty in the salvation of men and we are warned not to question this. But we all have the consolation of an invitation to come to him with his promise that he will receive us if we do and therefore the exercise of his sovereignty in salvation, though real, does not involve refusing anyone who comes by faith. I don't think that is a bad deal and I don't think it falls short of any non-Calvinist "offer".

Dave, I appreciate your reply, but the issue here is not whether God foreknew the crucifixion or permitted it. The issue is the category shift that happens when “allow” becomes “approve,” and then “approve” becomes “decree.” That is the very collapse of categories I was pointing out.

Scripture distinguishes between what God wills, what God permits, and what God overrules. The crucifixion fits all three categories without collapsing them. God foreknew it. God permitted it. God overruled it for redemption. But Scripture never says God willed the sin itself. The wicked act was theirs, not His. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). The counsel and foreknowledge were God’s. The wicked hands were theirs. The text keeps the categories distinct.

Your argument assumes that if God permits something necessary to His plan, He must therefore approve the sinful act itself. But that is the very point in dispute. Permission is not approval, and approval is not decree. God can permit what He hates in order to accomplish what He loves. That is providence, not determinism.

You also say that if God allows people to die in their sins, “there is a sense in which He approves that happening.” But Scripture says the opposite. “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11). God permits it. He does not approve it. He takes no pleasure in it. He calls all men everywhere to repent. The distinction matters.

As for Adam’s sin, Scripture never says it was decreed. It says Adam was commanded not to eat, that he disobeyed, and that death entered by his transgression. The necessity of redemption does not imply the decree of sin. God’s foreknowledge of the remedy does not mean He authored the disease.

My point remains simple. God foreknows. God permits. God overrules. But Scripture never attributes the sinful act itself to God’s will. When those categories collapse, we end up saying God willed what He forbids and approved what He condemns. That is not the language of Scripture.

Respectfully,

Tony

 

[Ascetic X]

Stop and think for a minute about how this thread started and what was said in the first post.

Was it God's will that the Lamb was slain? Then he "approved" it I assume.
Now, if the Lamb was slain it was necessary that Adam sin. Is that going too far? Yet was it God's will that Adam sin? What Calvinists say is that it was a necessity and therefore "decreed" that Adam sin - yet, it was Adam's free choice to sin and it was a violation of God's will.

So I would answer you that if God is all powerful and all knowing, and it is a fact that he allows people to die in their sins - then it must be true that there is a sense in which he approves that happening. Now, I would agree with you if you say that some Calvinists go too far in that they seem to think that God is equally happy that this happens as he is when men come in faith and repentance. I believe that God really does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked and is unhappy when they spurn his grace. But in his wisdom and sovereignty he has set limits and exercises his sovereignty in the salvation of men and we are warned not to question this. But we all have the consolation of an invitation to come to him with his promise that he will receive us if we do and therefore the exercise of his sovereignty in salvation, though real, does not involve refusing anyone who comes by faith. I don't think that is a bad deal and I don't think it falls short of any non-Calvinist "offer".

Calvinists portray God as the author of sin.

The Bible says God hates sin.

God cannot contradict Himself by giving a command, then willing His command to be violated.

God did not approve of Adam sinning, nor did God cause it to happen.

Satan must love hearing Calvinists accuse God of willing sin to happen.


I Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion…

 

[DaveXR650]

The issue is the category shift that happens when “allow” becomes “approve,” and then “approve” becomes “decree.” That is the very collapse of categories I was pointing out.

It is important that you understand this if you want to understand determinism as Calvinists use it. We all believe I think that God knows about everything that men are going to do before they do it. We also believe that God could, as in having the ability, stop men from doing anything, at any time. The assumption I am making then is the same as Edwards, in that therefore, if something happens, good or evil, God knowing beforehand that it was the intention of men to do so, allowed it to happen if indeed it happened. And in that sense he "approved" of what was done. Not that he likes what was done, but just that in his wisdom he wills permissively that it be allowed to happen and thus fit in to his larger plans. Knowing that, the rest of that post I would agree with.

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinists portray God as the author of sin.

The Bible says God hates sin.

God cannot contradict Himself by giving a command, then willing His command to be violated.

God did not approve of Adam sinning, nor did God cause it to happen.

Satan must love hearing Calvinists accuse God of willing sin to happen.


I Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion…

You are misinformed. I know of only one Calvinist who says that God is the author of sin and he although still writing, is of very minor importance. I think his name is Cheung but I don't remember for sure and don't wish to slander him by mistake if that is not the case.
You show by this post at best a complete ignorance of what Calvinism is and at worst a mean spirited divisiveness that could be harmful to a local assembly. I have seen it, believe me. Listen and you might learn something.

 

[Ascetic X]

It is important that you understand this if you want to understand determinism as Calvinists use it. We all believe I think that God knows about everything that men are going to do before they do it. We also believe that God could, as in having the ability, stop men from doing anything, at any time. The assumption I am making then is the same as Edwards, in that therefore, if something happens, good or evil, God knowing beforehand that it was the intention of men to do so, allowed it to happen if indeed it happened. And in that sense he "approved" of what was done. Not that he likes what was done, but just that in his wisdom he wills permissively that it be allowed to happen and thus fit in to his larger plans. Knowing that, the rest of that post I would agree with.

No, God will not violate freedom of choice to stop a person from doing something sinful.

Allowing is absolutely not approving.

Approve means to officially agree to, accept, and speak favorably of something. It indicates that an action, plan, or idea has been judged as pleasing and satisfactory. Approving means it has received formal permission, sanction, validation, and authorization.

God cannot approve of something, then punish the person who did it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I don't think that is a mainstream way of looking at this. I don't know enough about theology to know if that is true, or how much of an error it is, or isn't. I would caution against basing a theology on a logical assumption for instance that if a name can be blotted out it means all names had to already be there in the first place. I have found that theological truths are usually repeated multiple times in the Bible, in many different ways, and from many different angles. I would not camp on something like that above, except as a topic of friendly conversation, which is fine. And you seem to be a nice guy.

Dave, thank you for the kind tone. I am not basing anything on a logical assumption. I am simply taking the wording of Scripture at face value. The text says names can be blotted out. The only way a name can be blotted out is if it was there. That is not a system or a deduction. It is the plain meaning of the words.

I agree that doctrine should be established by repeated testimony, and that is exactly why I hold this view. The Bible consistently presents the Book of Life as something from which names are removed, not something to which names are selectively added. Exodus 32:33 says, “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” Revelation 3:5 says, “I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.” Revelation 22:19 speaks of God taking away a man’s part out of the book of life. Every reference is in the direction of removal, not pre‑creation exclusion.

So I am not camping on a single verse. I am letting all the verses speak in the same direction. The Book of Life begins full and is diminished by unbelief. That is the consistent pattern.

As for whether this is mainstream, that does not carry much weight with me. My concern is simply what the text says. If Scripture says names can be blotted out, then names were there. If Scripture shows removal, not selective addition, then that is the pattern I follow. My aim is not to build a system but to stay with the words as written.

Respectfully,

Tony

 

[DaveXR650]

No, God will not violate freedom of choice to stop a person from doing something sinful.

He could do that and I think sometimes does. Joseph found favor with an unrighteous ruler and also with an unrighteous jailer. But outside of that God frequently in scripture also used circumstances and/or physically prevented evil acts like when David was prevented from killing everyone in Abigail's household. But God certainly does let a person attempt something sinful and that is mostly what our problem is - our free will is intact and has such tendencies.

Allowing is absolutely not approving.

Approve means to officially agree to, accept, and speak favorably of something. It indicates that an action, plan, or idea has been judged as pleasing and satisfactory. Approving means it has received formal permission, sanction, validation, and authorization.

God cannot approve of something, then punish the person who did it.

Here we just disagree. By "approve" I mean that God allows the evil act to happen because he is going to have it fit into his larger plan - which was indeed his plan all along. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery which was their plan, their sin. God considered it sin and did not approve of the sin. But he did approve of the action in that it was his way of getting Joseph in the position where he would later literally save Israel. This is not some kind of odd proposition I'm making. I would think all Christians would already know these things. If you just don't like the use of the word "approve" then feel free to jettison it and that would be fine with me. I have tried to explain things using that term so that it might be helpful in understanding the very difficult concepts of evil existing, God allowing it, and yet accomplishing his plans, while still leaving human free will intact. Use whatever terms help you understand these things with my blessings.

 

[Ascetic X]

Here we just disagree. By "approve" I mean that God allows the evil act to happen because he is going to have it fit into his larger plan - which was indeed his plan all along. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery which was their plan, their sin. God considered it sin and did not approve of the sin. But he did approve of the action in that it was his way of getting Joseph in the position where he would later literally save Israel. This is not some kind of odd proposition I'm making. I would think all Christians would already know these things. If you just don't like the use of the word "approve" then feel free to jettison it and that would be fine with me. I have tried to explain things using that term so that it might be helpful in understanding the very difficult concepts of evil existing, God allowing it, and yet accomplishing his plans, while still leaving human free will intact. Use whatever terms help you understand these things with my blessings.

Yes, God can make lemonade out of lemons. Even terrible things can ultimately fit into His plans. But He does not approve or endorse everything.

I do not have supernatural insight into what all Christians know, but we must be very careful with that word “approve”.

When we jump from “God allows it” to “God approves it”, we have made a large leap.

I would think all people already know that if something is approved, that means it is okay, pleasing, legitimate, valid, endorsed, not forbidden.

There is the Calvinist slippery slope: from God approving to God authoring.

If God not only permits everything that happens, but also sovereignly decrees everything that happens, it logically follows that God wills or authors everything that happens, including the most vile abominations and hideous atrocities.

A decree is an official order or decision issued by an entity vested with authority, carrying the force of law. It dictates that something must happen and requires compliance.

Creeds and doctrines have to assert mutually conflicting principles in order to promote God decreeing everything, but not really being the author of evil.

Westminster Confession of Faith, III:

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; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

If God ordains it, God authored it.

The sin of Adam is ground zero. I have seen Calvinists assert that God willed Adam to fall, so that the pre-ordained plan of salvation could be implemented. But this is confirming that God gives a command, then wills that the command be violated, which is nonsensical, and makes God the author of sin, decreeing and condoning it.

So, we must not say God approves of everything that happens.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

He could do that and I think sometimes does. Joseph found favor with an unrighteous ruler and also with an unrighteous jailer. But outside of that God frequently in scripture also used circumstances and/or physically prevented evil acts like when David was prevented from killing everyone in Abigail's household. But God certainly does let a person attempt something sinful and that is mostly what our problem is - our free will is intact and has such tendencies.

Here we just disagree. By "approve" I mean that God allows the evil act to happen because he is going to have it fit into his larger plan - which was indeed his plan all along. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery which was their plan, their sin. God considered it sin and did not approve of the sin. But he did approve of the action in that it was his way of getting Joseph in the position where he would later literally save Israel. This is not some kind of odd proposition I'm making. I would think all Christians would already know these things. If you just don't like the use of the word "approve" then feel free to jettison it and that would be fine with me. I have tried to explain things using that term so that it might be helpful in understanding the very difficult concepts of evil existing, God allowing it, and yet accomplishing his plans, while still leaving human free will intact. Use whatever terms help you understand these things with my blessings.

Dave, I think the difficulty here is that you are using the word “approve” in several different senses. Sometimes you mean “allow,” sometimes “fit into His plan,” sometimes “intended all along,” and sometimes “God’s way of accomplishing His purpose.” Those are not the same thing, and Scripture does not collapse them. Permission is not approval, and approval is not decree.

Joseph’s brothers meant evil. God overruled their evil for good. The text never says God approved their sin. It says He used it. Those are different categories. God can permit what He hates in order to accomplish what He loves. That is providence, not approval.

The same applies to your example of David and Abigail. God restrained David, but He did so through timing, providence, and Abigail’s words. He did not override David’s will. Scripture shows God restraining, warning, convicting, limiting, and judging the unregenerate, but never coercing them. “Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost” Acts 7:51 would be impossible if God were overriding the will.

And that brings us to the central question: Does God violate freedom of choice in the unsaved world to prevent sin? The answer, drawn straight from Scripture, is simple.

No, God does not override the will of the unregenerate to prevent sin.
Yes, God does intervene decisively with His own children, even to the point of taking them home.

That distinction is not philosophical. It is not denominational. It is not speculative. It is biblical, and it is everywhere once you see it.

With the unregenerate, God strives, convicts, warns, restrains, and judges, but He does not force righteousness into them. If He did, there would be no sin at all.

With His own children, God chastens, scourges, and if necessary removes them from this life “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” 1Corinthians 5:5. That is not a threat to eternal security. It is one of the means by which eternal security is maintained.

My point remains simple. God foreknows, God permits, and God overrules, but Scripture never attributes the sinful act itself to God’s will. When those distinctions collapse, we end up saying God willed what He forbids and approved what He condemns, which Scripture never does.

Respectfully,

Tony

 

[DaveXR650]

Westminster Confession of Faith, III:

If God ordains it, God authored it.

Your quote didn't come through when I quoted it but as anyone can read above, you ignored two thirds of the quote and then conclude that "if God ordains it, God authored it." the Westminster confession quote does not say that. There is no sense continuing with you on this if you can quote something and then make such a conclusion out of what you just quoted, when the quote specifically states the opposite.

 

[DaveXR650]

God can permit what He hates in order to accomplish what He loves. That is providence, not approval.

Yes. There you go. But I did use the word "approve" and have explained about 5 times now that the overall plan is approved by God, was desired by God, and was set in place by God, without consulting us first. Like I told Ascetic, if you can't get past the word "approve" don't use it. But the principle is the same and is true.

The text never says God approved their sin.

Agreed. But he approved what happened as part of the plan to get Joseph in a position that through him, Israel would survive a famine many years down the road. No one, including me, has in any way suggested that God was in favor of what Joseph's brothers did, nor did God make them do so. But here's what you have to think about. You are really left with only two possibilities. One is that God knows all that men will do and anything they manage to do is either permitted to occur by God and is part of his overall plan, or it is what he actively wants them to do (as in the case of men doing his will), or else it doesn't happen. The other is that God is unwilling or unable to know what men will do and is responding to what they do after the fact. In other words God saw what Joseph's brothers did and after an initial shock, figured out a way to work it around to the advantage of Israel. That has to be the case with what you are saying.

I do not believe God is reacting to us after the fact of what we decide to do. I believe he knows what our free will decisions will be and in addition he is under no obligation to leave our wills untouched beyond what he decides. Our wills, our lives, our salvation are all completely at his disposal without him consulting us in the least. That should be a source of great comfort once you discover your own depravity and God's grace and goodwill towards us.

but Scripture never attributes the sinful act itself to God’s will.

Once again, all the confessions, including the one quoted above say this repeatedly, yet this is continuously brought up as an argument.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And that brings us to the central question: Does God violate freedom of choice in the unsaved world to prevent sin? The answer, drawn straight from Scripture, is simple.

No, God does not override the will of the unregenerate to prevent sin.
Yes, God does intervene decisively with His own children, even to the point of taking them home.

That distinction is not philosophical. It is not denominational. It is not speculative. It is biblical, and it is everywhere once you see it.

I really am not sure that it is.
Titus 3:3-7. 'For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.....' So first: were Paul and Titus regenerate at the time they were doing all this? Well, unless you believe in justification and regeneration from eternity, the answer must surely be 'no.' So did God override their wills to prevent sin? Yes, He did. '.....But when the kindness and the love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit....' God intervened decisively to make two dreadful sinners into His own children. It wasn't Paul and Titus coming to their senses, but God, in His 'kindness' and 'love' and 'mercy' taking them by the scruff of their necks and bringing them willy-nilly into His kingdom.
That's how it was when God saved me. I was almost 40 years old, dead in trespasses and sins, and God pretty much hauled me into His kingdom. Thanks, praise and glory to God for sovereign grace! Paul and Titus were not regenerate, but they were elect, and God intervened decisively to make them His children,

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Agreed. But he approved what happened as part of the plan to get Joseph in a position that through him, Israel would survive a famine many years down the road. No one, including me, has in any way suggested that God was in favor of what Joseph's brothers did, nor did God make them do so. But here's what you have to think about. You are really left with only two possibilities. One is that God knows all that men will do and anything they manage to do is either permitted to occur by God and is part of his overall plan, or it is what he actively wants them to do (as in the case of men doing his will), or else it doesn't happen.

Genesis 45:8. "So now it was not you who sent me here, but God."
Genesis 50:20. "But as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive."

 

[37818]

Revelation 21:7, He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.