Dave123

Jason I used a similar quote earlier in this thread. "God is very often said to blind and harden the reprobate . . .. There are two methods in which God may so act. [1] When his light is taken away, nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is withdrawn, we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he deprives of the faculty of seeing, obeying, and rightly executing. The second method . . . is when executing his judgements by Satan as the minister of his anger, God both directs men's counsels, and excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as he pleases. Institutes. (II.4.3) Lets try this a different way. Bear with me. I know we can get very technical with this analogy, but take in its most simplest understanding. When I turn on a light in a room, I created that light. The light overpowered the darkness. That's what I would define as effectual cause. Now, when I turn off that light, the room becomes dark. Darkness was not created, it did not overcome the light. The light was removed and darkness is what was left. Would it be right to say that I effectually caused that darkness? I don't believe so. Also, I did not create darkness for the purpose of overtaking the light. I simply removed the light. If we carry this analogy over to good vs. evil. Evil is not a created thing meant to overtake the light. Evil is the absence of good. God's justice did not demand that evil be created to overtake good, but it did demand that the light be removed. Within God's eternal decree, there was a purpose for darkness. God did use it, He decreed it. He ordained it, etc . He's sovereign over it, He just didn't effectually cause it. He can't without ceasing to be God. This is what I believe that Calvin means in both quotes. And this is where I believe that you and I differ. I believe that God can be sovereign over something that He doesn't effectually cause. He can decree it etc., etc, right down the line. There seems to be the idea with you, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that if God is sovereign over it, then he had to effectually cause it. I agree that when the light was turned off, God knew and planned on the darkness being there, and used it, etc. He just didn't effectuall cause it. Dave

Legoman I went out of my way to make sure that nobody misunderstood me in that regard. First paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Nobody *ascended* to heaven except the Son of God. Big difference. As for the rest, your answers are in my previous posts. Dave

Hey J I'm on my way out. I just seen your name at the bottom of the page Good night Dave

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. It does not say "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good for the purpose that God created it. This does not conflict with Prov. 16:4. Be careful not to read into that passage more than what is being said. Obviously, God had a purpose in creating men which He knew would be evil. Knowing this, He created them with that purpose in mind. This does not mean that God created evil men for His purpose. See the difference? In other words, the "purpose" of that passage speaks of that persons whole life, and is not restricted to the time of that persons creation, or better, does not imply that God inserted evil into them upon their creation. That's not what it says. NIV 4 The LORD works out everything for his own ends

legoman When God "raises up evil". We see this differently. Think the implication through. Did God take a "good" people, insert evil, then direct them towards Israel? This is what your position assumes. Or, did God take an already evil people, and simply direct them towards Israel? The second is not a creating of evil per say, but a providentially governing of it. God did not insert evil into their hearts, He simply left them to themselves. He ordained it. He used it. He decreed it. Again, the question is not "could they have sinned?" The point being missed in regards to the 'sinful nature' is that the one who is enslaved by it cannot do good because he is seperated from God, the Source of all that is good. In effect, you are claiming, by saying that Adam and Eve had a sinful nature before the fall, that they were already seperated from God and could not do good. Rememebr, God said that everything that He created was "good", including Adam and Eve. This does not mean that they could not sin, it simply meant that they did not yet sin, because accountability came with the knowledge of good and evil. The one thing that God commanded them not to do was the one thing that would make them accountable. Ezekiel 28:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 12

Hi legoman. I'm still short on time but I do have a question that may save us some time in our discussion. Are you familiar with the infralapsarianism (sublapsarianism) vs. supralapsarianism debate? I don't ask this to debate it with you, but only because the debate itself drives one to consider the first "cause" when it come to evil. Everything after Adam and Eve is justice. Adam and Eve, in my mind, if there was a libertarian free will, they would qualify. I really don't know. I do know that they were not enslaved to a sinful nature before the fall. So, it's not that they couldn't choose evil, but more so, before the fall, that they could choose good. We can only look to scripture to try to pc. it together. As I stated in the past, everything that God created, He created good. That should tell us something there. Along with other things that have been posted earier in this thread. I won't get into it all again. In short, I believe that the burdon of proof would fall on your shoulders to prove that God caused Satan to rebel, likewise, where we are concerned, that God caused Adam to fall. I don't believe scripture goes that far, therefore I believe it would be innappropriate to claim it as Biblical fact. Also, the circumstancial evidence, if you want to call it that, some of which I posted earlier, tells me that God cannot be the cause of evil. Fraught I borrowed that question from this pc. http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/02...w_hendryx_1.php The idea was to get a fresh perspective. People define freedom, or free will in so many different ways these days that it's important that we all understand what we mean when we use that term. Anyways, read the pc., it's short. I think that Hendryx's question cuts through some of the misunderstandings behind the term when it is used.

Hi legoman. I'm short on time today. Check out my thread called *"bare Permission" is unbiblical*. Maybe that will help you to understand where I'm coming from. Fraught, a question for you if you don't mind. I need to try to understand exactly what you are saying for me to respond correctly. When you speak of 'man's free will', what are you claiming man's will is free from? From sin? God's sovereinty? Dave

Thanks for the reply, legoman Probably the best reponse that I could give to you would be the one that you were replying to from me. Again, a muddying of the waters. This is a direct result of our seperation from God that we inherited from Adam. This is a seperation that is not only from God, but from the only source of good. This is also an act of judgement. This is why it is said "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5). Until God moves, man is left to himself. Without God, the source of all good, (John 15:5, 1 Corinthians 4:7, Isaiah 64:6) man can only produce evil. This is the foundation for the doctrine known as total depravity, or better, total inability. God must move first (John 6:44). Calvin touched on this in the quote I gave from my previous post. This is speaking of Gods providence. I agree that He governs all things. This is very different from saying that He effectually caused them. "Worketh all" would fall into the catagory of what you would call "does use [all]". Dave

Alright, teach. Hey I thought I'd throw this in since it's fresh on my mind. "God is very often said to blind and harden the reprobate . . .. There are two methods in which God may so act. [1] When his light is taken away, nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is withdrawn, we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he deprives of the faculty of seeing, obeying, and rightly executing. The second method . . . is when executing his judgements by Satan as the minister of his anger, God both directs men's counsels, and excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as he pleases. Institutes. (II.4.3)

Hi legoman Again, we need to be careful to look at the context of many of the scriptures that you posted. Most are, as was pointed out, acts of judgement. Do you see the difference between the next two quotes? Your quote from the article I posted: Your response: The first quote which I used speaks of effectual cause only. But the second, your responce in critiquing the first adds "sends forth" and "uses". This is a muddying of the waters, wouldn't you agree? We are speaking strictly of the cause, or source of evil. There is quite a big difference between God providentially governing everything, including evil, from an eternal decree, being sovereign over it, and saying that all evil is caused, as in sourced in God. If you will kindly post the scripture that you believe says that God is the cause, meaning the source of evil, then we will deal with those. Something for you to consider too. "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." Thanks Dave

I wanted to add this from the link provided in my previous post. Just a pc. of it that touched on some of the discussion here. It's still worth your time to read the whole thing. I also would like to pose the questions I asked in my last thread again if anyone is still interested. Is it safe (biblical) to say that God is the only source of good? Would it then be correct to say that evil is not a created thing, per say, but simply the absence of God, or better, the absence of Good? Dave

Good verses, and points made by all. I'll try to reply to all of it, if not now, then when time allows. I'm actually heading somewhere with this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a side note, something a little off topic but still important to remember for future reference. Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19; Matthew 19:17 So Jesus said to him,

What does the Bible tell us?

You're welcome kross. I try. Dave

Thanks for the reply, Matt. I believe that, while this does not capture the whole of the definition of terms like ordain and predestine, one of the important distinctions in scripture to recognise, as I see it, and I'm open to any criticisms that will enhance my understanding in this context, is that 'ordain' is used in a much more broad context and allows for both God's effectual will and His permissive will, while 'predestine', again, in the biblical sense of the word, speaks only of God's effectual, or effective will. And all these things were worked out from the foundations of the world. Salvation is an act of God (predestine), while damnation, is an act of justice towards men who by their own will rejected Him (ordained-allowed). This is all within God's eternal decree from the foundations of the world. God remains completely sovereign in all of it. Those who reject Him hold all the responsibility for their guilt. It should be noted that there are many people today who define these terms incorrectly. Sometimes even using theses terms as interchangable. While I cannot claim to understand the depths of distinction between the two biblical terms, I do like to keep them each both within the proper framework that scripture allows. All should keep in mind that If something was not ordained by God, then God isn't sovereign, He would be reduced to simply reacting in time and hoping He gets a good outcome. He is the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. God must have foreknowledge because He is all knowing and always has been. "From the foundations of the world" is another way of saying that God is not bound by time. He knows the beginning and the end all at once. Nothing happens that takes Him by surprise. Not to be mistaken for foresight, which many today use to claim God is reacting to man, which is the way that some wrongly view the term "foreknowledge". I find that the older theologians didn't necessarily have problems in defining these terms as we do today. For instance, I don't mind if the word "Predestined" is used with the reprobate if it is used correctly. Many times Calvin uses the same but it was meant, as the context usually makes very clear, in a judicial sense, meaning as an act of justice, or better, from the 'fall of man' forward. Not everyone speaking from the eternal decree see the elect as being elected out of guilt, as all men were rightly judged from the fall. Hense, from that point, being the fall of man and forward it would be correct to use "predestined" But this is a very fine line and the proper context must be understood or things can be read into his and others statements that were never meant. Anyways, keep that thought in the back of your mind when reading from some of the links above. The nuances are often times missed and many times things are read into statements that were never intended by the author of the same. Also keep in mind that the 'why' question can only take us so far. We can understand some of it, but we are still going to be left with questions. We go as far as scripture allows, only. Anyways...

"(Without getting sidetracked on a secondary issue, let me go on record as saying I believe there is a permissive element in God's decree with respect to evil. That is, His decree doesn't make him the author or efficient cause of evil. But, as Calvin said, God's role in the origin of evil is not bare permission. In other words, it's not permission against His will, but a positive decree. In that respect, I think Clark is absolutely right, and his arguments on this point are cogent and persuasive.)"Clark http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005 ... ether.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Below, A.W. Pink (The Sovereignty of God - Chapter 8, under question 1) "Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission for God only permits that which He has purposed." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turretin (V1. vii. i) makes the following remark: 'Two extremes are to he avoided. First, that of defect, when an otiose permission of sin is ascribed to God. Second, that of excess, when the causality of sin is ascribed to him. Between these extremes, the orthodox hold the mean, who contend that the providence of God extends to sin in such way that he does not involuntarily permit it, as the Pelagians say, nor actively cause it as the Libertines assert, but voluntarily ordains and controls it'. (Taken from Colin Maxwell's "HOW CAN GOD ORDAIN SIN AND YET NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?", which is a good read) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting read http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/04/ ... sin-1.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology - Part 1, Chapter 5, Section 9C): "The decretive and preceptive will of God can never be in conflict. God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden." God does not need to effectually cause something to be sovereign over it. Nor did He need to react to man to make an eternal decree. Calvin on the Sovereignty of God by John Murray (This is a very nice work) http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/murray_...nsovereign.html

Divine sovereignty and human will, Compatible or Incompatible? God's sovereignty is not affected, no matter how free or how enslaved one might be. So to pit God's sovereignty against mans freedom in reality doesn't solve anything. One does not cancel the other out. Freedom cancels out enslavement, and vise versa. God sovereignty is unaffected through all of this. "The incompadibilist seeks to find some room for the sovereignty of God within the assumption of libertarian freedom. But incompatibilism fails badly as a way of understanding the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom. First, it assumes a libertarian view of freedom. Human beings always possess the power of contrary choice. Second, incompatibilism insists that such a notion of freedom is the necessary condition for moral accountability: I cannot be held responsible if I could not choose to do otherwise. Third, in this view the sovereignty of God is necessarily limited by human freedom. If God has ordained that I perform some act, I could not choose otherwise and thus I am not truly free. While this collection of assumptions constitutes a coherent whole, each is no more than an assumption. And while they are all taken as having self-evident power within Arminian theological circles, we can find no evidence that scripture teaches or assumes any of them.--- ---Scripture seems to deny the very sort of independence that the libertarian freedom demands. Human beings are never independent of God. Whereas incompatibilism holds that libertarian freedom--independence from all causes and forces external to the will--is the prerequisite for responsibility, the Bible seams to assume the opposite: responsibility is the necessary condition for freedom. The gift of responsible choice has meaning and significance not because of any connection to libertarian freedom but because it is an essential aspect of our imaging God. Freedom in scripture is not independence from God and His will but dependence upon God and our faithful participation in His Kingdom. True freedom, freedom in the Biblical sense, is the liberty to obey God without restraint, without sin standing in the way.--- ---Scripture teaches that the sinner is a slave to sin. A slave is not free but bound. Any discussion of freedom within a Christian or Biblical context must do justice to this fundamental Biblical principle: sin reigns over the unregenerate heart. The sinner is not free to please or love God. Biblical freedom, the ability to do that which is pleasing to God ( John 8:34-36; cf. Romans 6:15-23; 2 Corinthians 3:17 ), Freedom from sin, is given to us by the redemptive work of Christ.--- ---Jesus said: "The good man brings forth good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored in his heart. For out of the outflow of his heart his mouth speaks" ( Luke 6:45; cf. Matthew 7:15-20; Matthew 12:33-35 ). A person chooses and acts according to his character. The will is not independent of the person and nature who chooses. We do what we want to do ( Deuteronomy 30:19; Matthew 17:12 Jas 1:14), even though our characters, which are themselves determined by a myriad of forces external to us and outside of our control, determine what we want to do. Personal character is not nearly as spontaneous as those who see the will as a power of contrary choice like to suggest.--- (Taken from the book "why I am not an arminian") So you ask, how can God be completely Sovereign and man be held completely responsible? Here are two very clear biblical examples. Joseph speaking to his brothers who sold him into slavery said; Gen. 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. (also Gen. 45:4-8) "One sinful action is in view. Josephs brothers meant it for evil. But in direct parallel, God meant the same action for good. Due to the intention of the hearts of Josephs brothers, the action in the human realm was evil. The very same action as part of God's eternal decree was meant for good, for by it God brought about His purpose and plan. One action, two intentions, compatible in all things. Josephs brothers were accountable for their intentions; God is glorified for His."(White) Acts 4:27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. "One action , the great sacrifice of the son of God, is in view. Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the Jews were all gathered together against Jesus. Their actions were obviously sinful. Their intentions were evil. Yet, the Word of God is clear: They did what they did because God's hand and purpose predestined it to take place. Were they accountable for their intentions and desires? Of course. But was the certainty of the Cross and the sacrifice ever dependent upon man's will? Never. It happened according to the predestined plan of God and is therefore completely to His honor and glory. One action, part of the divine decree, sinful on the part of the intentions of the men involved, and yet fully in harmony with the holy purpose of God, to His glory and His praise. Man's will, God's sovereign decree, compatible with one another. This is the biblical teaching." (White) What is the compatiblist definition of Man's freedom? "The compatibilist holds that every human action has a sufficient cause outside of the human will. Freedom in the compatibilist sense is the contention that even if every choice we make and every act we perform is determined by forces outside ourselves, and ultimately by God's ordaining guidance, we are still free, for we still act according to our desires." Many people probably acknowledge compatibilism without even realizing it. Before you eat dinner, do you give thanks for it? Why? It was you who worked for the money, bought the food cooked the meal, right? Does that make you a robot? Here is more examples of compatibilism with the regenerate heart recorded in scripture. The Bible tells us that we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling Philippians 2:13-13, but does this make it any less through, by and from God? Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Jude shows the same... Jude 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 But others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. 24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, 25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. The point is, that the context of our recent discussions on the topic of God's sovereignty in this forum have missed the mark right from the starting gates. I'll add more later if needed. I just wanted to lay some ground work out for a propper, Biblical discussion. Dave

In Hebrews 12:2 "author" is rendered from the Greek word archēg

And... Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near, 1) He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying,

It's important to seperate 'God's will' as in the basis of His justice, and God's will, as in His eternal decree. God's will of decree is always done, without exception, period. Just because God's demands that we not sin, does not constitute that we have a free will not to do so. God asked Moses what it was in His hand. Should we also conclude that God didn't know Moses was holding a staff?

And...

In Hebrews 12:2 "author" is rendered from the Greek word archēg

OT saints were saved by faith, just as we are today. They looked forward, we look back. Anyone under the Law will be judged and found guilty. Genesis 15:6 God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on basis of his faith (also see Romans 1:17; Romans 3:24; Romans 4:1-25). This is the same "righteousness of God" that is imputed to us today when we believe in faith. Here's a nice little passage to take a closer look at. Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Peace

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. John 11:51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.