Is anyone interested in Wed. 3/20/2024 Open Discussion?

[cjab]

To be fair to Calvin, Calvin admonished all against speculative theology. Nothing is more speculative than that God decrees sin. In fact such a notion is fatuous.

The crux of the issue concerns the biblical usage of "decree" (δικαίωμα - Rom 1:32 - ordinance - that which has been deemed right so as to have force of law). So "decree" isn't the right word to describe anything ouside of what God has specifically ordained. A "decree" is never speculative. Thus Adam and Eve's sin wasn't "decreed" by God, as contrary to God's revealed law at that time.

Yet, as God does bring (foreordain) evil, how could it be "decreed"? "Decree" invokes the concept of God's wrath against criminals, apostates, or the discipline of the wavering. So in the Levitical law, all manner of evil is statutorily decreed against those who break the law. By extension, ad hoc wrath was decreed by the prophets against nations who en masse broke the law. By further extenstion, the general idea of a "decree" (albeit an unpublished one) is used as a simile by the apostles concerning the testing of the righteous (cf. Job, cf. Paul, cf. James 1:2) or of churches (1Co 11:30) or of any in danger of becoming proud (2Co 12:7) i.e. wherever the hand of God is discerned in anything at all.

So the general question, "does God decree sin against babies," is self-answering. The use of the word "sin" (or whatever crime you care to insert) precludes it being a decree of God. Sin is solely the responsbility of the sinner: 1 Samuel 24:13 etc. Sins are never directly imputable to God. The apostolic teaching in Rom 9:21, casts the sinner as the sole vessel of dishonor (ἀτιμία - dishonour, ignominy, disgrace). Any attempt to impute God with responsibility for sin must fail

Yet in specific cases of apparently gratuitous evil, there may be a prophetic decree e.g. the parents of a baby that dies may be guilty of adultery (David & Bathsheba). Actually, foetuses in the womb were put to death all the time under the Levitical law, where adultery resulted in death. Rom 8:28 holds the key: God purposes are fulfilled in all things [albeit not everything fulfils God's purpose]. Thus in the actions of the Assyrians: God's purposes in bringing wrath were fulfilled; and yet, as the acts of depredation themselves were individually unsanctioned by God, such acts brought retribution for the sinners.

PS: Neither πρόθεσι (God's purpose specifically in election cf. Rom 9:11), nor βουλή (Strongs 1012 - God's counsel cf. Luke 7:30) are applicable to acts contrary to God's law.

 

[Grace_Accepted]

To be fair to Calvin, Calvin admonished all against speculative theology. Nothing is more speculative than that God decrees sin. In fact such a notion is fatuous.

The crux of the issue concerns the biblical usage of "decree" (δικαίωμα - Rom 1:32 - ordinance - that which has been deemed right so as to have force of law). So "decree" isn't the right word to describe anything ouside of what God has specifically ordained. A "decree" is never speculative. Thus Adam and Eve's sin wasn't "decreed" by God, as contrary to God's revealed law at that time.

Yet, as God does bring (foreordain) evil, how could it be "decreed"? "Decree" invokes the concept of God's wrath against criminals, apostates, or the discipline of the wavering. So in the Levitical law, all manner of evil is statutorily decreed against those who break the law. By extension, ad hoc wrath was decreed by the prophets against nations who en masse broke the law. By further extenstion, the general idea of a "decree" (albeit an unpublished one) is used as a simile by the apostles concerning the testing of the righteous (cf. Job, cf. Paul, cf. James 1:2) or of churches (1Co 11:30) or of any in danger of becoming proud (2Co 12:7) i.e. wherever the hand of God is discerned in anything at all.

So the general question, "does God decree sin against babies," is self-answering. The use of the word "sin" (or whatever crime you care to insert) precludes it being a decree of God. Sin is solely the responsbility of the sinner: 1 Samuel 24:13 etc. Sins are never directly imputable to God. The apostolic teaching in Rom 9:21, casts the sinner as the sole vessel of dishonor (ἀτιμία - dishonour, ignominy, disgrace). Any attempt to impute God with responsibility for sin must fail

Yet in specific cases of apparently gratuitous evil, there may be a prophetic decree e.g. the parents of a baby that dies may be guilty of adultery (David & Bathsheba). Actually, foetuses in the womb were put to death all the time under the Levitical law, where adultery resulted in death. Rom 8:28 holds the key: God purposes are fulfilled in all things [albeit not everything fulfils God's purpose]. Thus in the actions of the Assyrians: God's purposes in bringing wrath were fulfilled; and yet, as the acts of depredation themselves were individually unsanctioned by God, such acts brought retribution for the sinners.

PS: Neither πρόθεσι (God's purpose specifically in election cf. Rom 9:11), nor βουλή (Strongs 1012 - God's counsel cf. Luke 7:30) are applicable to acts contrary to God's law.

I would agree. Trying to understand reformed theology has given me a bit of whiplash. I think there is a key verse that unlocks a lot of the mystery surrounding predestination and God's decrees. Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Calvin took each element of the passage as active, that is an action of God upon someone or something. But to foreknow ( proginóskó) means to know beforehand, which is passive. It is akin to observation. There is nothing to warrant attaching a decree to it. God, who dwells in all time, would know who would respond to His appeal, which He makes through his servants to mankind.

Foreknowledge is the first thing in the sequence. From this knowledge God predestined those He knew would receive Him to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Justification, sanctification, and glorification all flow from God's foreknowledge, not a decree that a certain group will be changed without consent into beings who suddenly love God and desire to be with Him. While it is true that the Father gives us to the Son and we can only come to the Father through the Son, this is open to all people on the earth who will receive Jesus Christ. We don't know who will or will not submit to God, but He does.

 

[CookedGoose]

We don't know who will or will not submit to God, but He does.

If God already knows, or if He knew in the past, then it's already determined.
It's unalterable.
That's why it's already PREdestined.
Reformed theology acknowledges that.

Trying to understand reformed theology has given me a bit of whiplash.

It SHOULD be every other theology that gives you whiplash, because only reformed theology can incorporate "proginosko" without conflicting with itself.

Thus Adam and Eve's sin wasn't "decreed" by God,

Right, it wasn't decreed,
In fact the decree was to not sin.

"does God decree sin against babies,"

God ordained sin when He cursed Adam, it's not a decree.

 

[CookedGoose]

God predestined those He knew would receive Him

Which eliminates free will, open theism and probably several other doctrines.

 

[Grace_Accepted]

If God already knows, or if He knew in the past, then it's already determined.

If I watch a taped replay of a game, I do not control the game. That is the difference. God could foresee everything and that is why we have the cross. He knew what it would take to have a people who, of their own free will, choose him. He knew that when He created such creatures, they would choose evil. But He did not cause them to. It simply was an unavoidable side effect of creating free moral agents. He could have decreed that such would never be the case but then all He would have in His kingdom would be companion Bots and no matter how cleverly it was disguised, He would still know that it was at the very core of it a form of manipulation..

It's unalterable.
That's why it's already PREdestined.
Reformed theology acknowledges that.

It SHOULD be every other theology that gives you whiplash, because only reformed theology can incorporate "proginosko" without conflicting with itself.

I can understand that in terms of observation and not imposition.

Right, it wasn't decreed,
In fact the decree was to not sin.

This is why it gives me whiplash. Some Calvinists say it is not decreed where, as others say it is such as
author and preacher Vincent Cheung who wrote, “God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil.”

And although John Piper doesn't use the word decree, he does state, “Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe, such as dust particles in the air and all of our besetting sins?"

So, as one exploring different Christian traditions, you can see how confusing it can get.

God ordained sin when He cursed Adam, it's not a decree.

Again, it is confusing because John Calvin said, "The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should..."

 

[Grace_Accepted]

Which eliminates free will, open theism and probably several other doctrines.

Only if one narrowly defines it as being forced into a certain destination ahead of time. But there is no reason that a traveler cannot choose to abandon their destination mid-journey. Predestination can also simply mean a destination chosen for us ahead of time. That does not preclude choosing to get off the train.

 

[CookedGoose]

And although John Piper doesn't use the word decree, he does state, “Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe, such as dust particles in the air and all of our besetting sins?"

Technically speaking, Piper is perfectly accurate if that's what he's saying.

de·cree
[dəˈkrē]
noun

1. an official order issued by a legal authority:
   "Ordain" would basically refer to whatever is in the decree. It would be "arranged unalterably" and immutable.
   

Only if one narrowly defines it as being forced into a certain destination ahead of time.

"Force" has nothing to do with it.
If the destination is foreknown, that same destination is determined to happen
Otherwise it can't be foreknown.

But there is no reason that a traveler cannot choose to abandon their destination mid-journey. Predestination can also simply mean a destination chosen for us ahead of time. That does not preclude choosing to get off the train.

Whether a person jumps off the train would also be foreknown, it would be known ahead of time

 

[CookedGoose]

If I watch a taped replay of a game, I do not control the game. That is the difference. God could foresee everything and that is why we have the cross. He knew what it would take to have a people who, of their own free will, choose him.

1. The future is foreknown by God, therefore it's determined.
2. Technically speaking (I have to be careful here....) humans have wills that are free (we choose what we most desire)

But all we end up doing with our free wills is choosing what God already foreknows, what is already determined to happen.
Both are true.
That's why the Calvinists on this board are all compatibilists.

 

[CookedGoose]

author and preacher Vincent Cheung who wrote, “God controls everything that is and everything that happens.

Right, there's nothing outside His sovereignty.

There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed

This is not technically correct, the language is a little sloppy. It would be more accurate to say everything is ordained.

– not even a single thought in the mind of man.

Right. Thoughts of people are inside (under) God's sovereignty.

 

[Grace_Accepted]

Right, there's nothing outside His sovereignty.

That was not the part of the quote that concerned me. It was this part, "...it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil.”

 

[Grace_Accepted]

Technically speaking, Piper is perfectly accurate if that's what he's saying.

de·cree
[dəˈkrē]
noun

1. an official order issued by a legal authority:
   "Ordain" would basically refer to whatever is in the decree. It would be "arranged unalterably" and immutable.

Ordained or decreed, either way. God is light, and what fellowship would he have with light? However, I appreciate the clarification, and I must remind myself to just learn what reformed theology really means rather than debate it at this point.

"Force" has nothing to do with it.
If the destination is foreknown, that same destination is determined to happen
Otherwise it can't be foreknown.

The determinative factor would be time. God is not bound by time, so it is observed and not determined unless we are going to place God on our timeline.

Whether a person jumps off the train would also be foreknown, it would be known ahead of time

There is no ahead of time with God.

 

[CookedGoose]

That was not the part of the quote that concerned me. It was this part, "

...it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power.

Ok, this is gonna get sticky....

In Genesis 3:15, because of Adam's sin, God says "I will put enmity between your seed and her Seed."

1. This is the source of sin, it's what caused sin.
2. The enmity is "decreed" (very, very technically speaking) but the sin that results from it is not decreed.
3. The resulting sin from the enmity is only "ordained", meaning it has been arranged by God and can't change.

"Permission" doesn't even come into the discussion, sin is obviously permitted by God.

Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions,

Well....depends on what is meant by independent.
Creatures make decisions that are independent of coercion, but not independent of God's sovereignty.
And creatures end up making decisions that God already knows they'll make anyway

evil could never have started without God’s active decree,

Right, evil couldn't have started without "enmity" from Genesis 3.
Although it could be argued it had to start earlier with Adam eating the fruit, although that's a logical necessity we aren't given that information.

and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will.

Right, God would have to revoke his curse on Adam.

God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil.”

The language is a little sloppy, but we get the point.
Evil wasn't exactly decreed, it's only been ordained.
Specifically "enmity" was decreed.

 

[CookedGoose]

Ordained or decreed, either way.

The difference only becomes relevant when the issue of culpability comes into play.
God ordained all evil, but He only decreed "hatred".

Nonetheless even the hatred He decreed was the result of Adam breaking his covenant with God.
"In the day you eat of it you shall surely die."
Adam was the perpetrator, not God. "through Adam sin entered into the world."
Adam is culpable for evil, not God.

The determinative factor would be time. God is not bound by time, so it is observed and not determined unless we are going to place God on our timeline.

Without the existence of time, the direct relationship between foreknowledge and determination is even more clear.

If the only time that existed was the present, it would mean what God is currently knowing is also being currently determined.
There's no other way.

The determinative factor would be time. God is not bound by time, so it is observed and not determined unless we are going to place God on our timeline.

It's even more true without time.
What is determined God knows, and what God knows is determined.
Past present and future is irrelevant.

There is no ahead of time with God.

This is true, but it doesn't do your argument any good.

 

[preacher4truth]

Again, it is confusing because John Calvin said, "The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should..."

Of course the LORD deemed it fit.

 

[Grace_Accepted]

1. The future is foreknown by God, therefore it's determined.

Only of God is on our timeline.

2. Technically speaking (I have to be careful here....) humans have wills that are free (we choose what we most desire)

But all we end up doing with our free wills is choosing what God already foreknows, what is already determined to happen.
Both are true.
That's why the Calvinists on this board are all compatibilists.

1. The future is foreknown by God, therefore it's determined.

Only if God is on our timeline.

2. Technically speaking (I have to be careful here....) humans have wills that are free (we choose what we most desire)

But all we end up doing with our free wills is choosing what God already foreknows, what is already determined to happen.
Both are true.

This defies logic. However, God's foreknowledge is not the same as determinism since He is not on our timeline, so His foreknowledge is observational.

That's why the Calvinists on this board are all compatibilists.

Compatibilism is determinism modified for the sake of appearances and for language use. It is a position taken because determinists need to have some idea of accountability or responsibility for human behavior but the universe is not deterministic.
.

 

[CookedGoose]

. The future is foreknown by God, therefore it's determined.

Only of God is on our timeline.

Not true, in fact.......
If we (hypothetically) did away with time altogether, we could say this....
"What God knows (without time) is determined (without time)"
This deals with God's omniscience only.
It eliminates the FORE in foreknowledge, reduces it down to only knowledge.

You keep trying to do away with time because you need to work some open theism in to get your doctrine to work.
Foreknowledge and determinism don't exist without each other, because they can't.

This defies logic. However, God's foreknowledge is not the same as determinism since He is not on our timeline, so His foreknowledge is observational.

God can't know something happens unless it happens
Past, present and future. The "timline" is irrelevant, it's ETERNALLY true.
It's everlastingly true.

If you want to argue against Calvinism you need to bring an argument other than "this demands a timeline".
I'm showing why you can pick any timeline you want, or no timeline at all, knowledge still demands determinism and foreknowledge demands predeterminism, just like post-knowledge would demand post-determinism. Makes no difference.

Compatibilism is determinism modified for the sake of appearances and for language use.

No, compatibilism is the only way God's foreknowledge and free will can coexist and both be true.

 

[Theo1689]

I guess this answers my questions. I am disappointed that something a simple yes or no could have answered had to turn into a full-blown ad hominem attack.

In my experience, when someone DEMANDS a "simple yes or no", and REFUSES to allow their opponent to elaborate, it demonstrates that the person is NOT interested in learning, but has simply closed their minds and wants to try to FORCE the other person to confirm your misunderstanding.

I'm a teacher.
And if a student of mine were to simply DEMAND I answer their question "yes or no" when their question indicated a significant ignorance in their understanding (and that has never happened), I would refuse to give a "yes" or "no" (which would only serve to make them more confident in their misunderstanding), but would instead provide a longer discussion for the purpose of clearing up their misconception.

You don't want to understand Calvinism.
You simply want to try to "force" us to confirm your wrong understanding.
And since I love God, and love truth, I refuse to do that.

Whether I believe the Bible or not was not an issue of this inquiry.

Actually, it is 100% the issue!
If you CLAIM to believe the Bible, then you MUST accept what it says, even if "Calvin" also taught it (although I'm really not sure why you're so obsessed with him).

If you CLAIM to believe the Bible, then you MUST accept what it says, even if you don't particularly "like" the truth.

But you keep using "Calvin" and "Reformed theology" as excuses to REJECT what the BIBLE actually teaches.

If that weren't true, then you would NEVER bring up "Calvin" or "Reformed theology" labels, as they are completely IRRELEVANT in discussing what the BIBLE teaches.

They are simply EXCUSES used by you to try to justify rejecting parts of the Bible.

According to Reformed theology,

According to the BIBLE...

God decreed every event in the cosmos and thus included all sinful acts ever committed.

Yes, that's what the BIBLE teaches.
That's why you keep RUNNING AWAY from Gen. 50:20.
That's why you keep RUNNING AWAY from Isa. 10:5-7.
That's why you keep RUNNING AWAY from Acts 4:27-28.

According to Reformed theology,

According to the BIBLE...

even though God commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, God still decreed that He would eat of it.

You don't like that.
So even though the Bible teaches it, you REJECT the Bible, using "Reformed theology" as your excuse to reject the Bible.

Do I hate what the bible teaches?

Yes, you do.

Well, I have been learning a lot about what different groups say the bible teaches or doesn't teach.

Yes, that's another excuse people like you use to reject the Bible.
"It's simply your OPINION"!"

Well, EVERY interpretation of the Bible is someone's "opinion", so I guess according to you, the Bible doesn't mean ANYTHING. That's not a tenable position.

Each is just as sure as the others that they are correct. It is one reason I have gone on this journey. I have seen many different portraits of God reflected in different camps. Calvinism is another voice barking on the midway.

It is historical view of the Bible, dating back to Augustine, and arguably dating back to Paul and Jesus.

It has historically been what Christians have ALWAYS believed when they were finally able to get the Bible into their own hands and study it for themselves.

Anyway, If reformed theology teaches God has not actually decreed that sin should exist and decreed every sinful act ever committed.

The BIBLE does not teach that.
So why would "Reformed theology" teach that?

Why do you have a problem with God causing actions which are considered sin when men do it?

Here is God's answer for you:

Gen. 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, ​

but God meant it for good, ​

to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. ​

 

[Theo1689]

I would agree. Trying to understand reformed theology has given me a bit of whiplash. I think there is a key verse that unlocks a lot of the mystery surrounding predestination and God's decrees. Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The problem is that you don't understand the meaning of "foreknow", which despite your false claim, most definitely IS an "active" verb.

Here is a link that provides the definition of "foreknow" from 5 standard lexicons.

Loading…

forums.carm.org

It means, "to choose in advance", when the object is a person.
And that is most CERTAINLY something God actively "does".

 

[Grace_Accepted]

The problem is that you don't understand the meaning of "foreknow"

This is probably the most famous of all Calvinist arguments. The problem is you don't understand "fill in the blank." I am unsure why you did not recognize that I was not talking about parts of speech. Nor was I referring to active voice. I was referring to actively dictating vs. passively observing.

, which despite your false claim, most definitely IS an "active" verb.

Here is a link that provides the definition of "foreknow" from 5 standard lexicons.

Loading…

forums.carm.org

There are several usages within these "definitions." This is not a singular definition.

It means, "to choose in advance", when the object is a person.
And that is most CERTAINLY something God actively "does".

That is one of many possible uses. Other's include "to know beforehand" "God pre-knowing all choices – and doing so without pre-determining (requiring) them"

A lot was left out of this list.

 

[Grace_Accepted]

In my experience, when someone DEMANDS a "simple yes or no", and REFUSES to allow their opponent to elaborate, it demonstrates that the person is NOT interested in learning, but has simply closed their minds and wants to try to FORCE the other person to confirm your misunderstanding.

Not when one is only seeking confirmation of what one has heard. I ask a person if a rumor is true or not. A yes or no will suffice.