Eternal / Exhaustive Divine Decree
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to present problems for Calvinism 's (EDD ).
How do the Calvinists answer?
1. God determined that Sodom would become so wicked.
2. God determined that their wickedness would include sexual perversion.
3. God determined that Lot would offer his daughters to be abused..
4. Even though God brought Lot's wife out of the city, God determined that she would be lost, in spite of having warned her not to look back.
5. Why would God warn her if she was determined before the foundation of the world to be lost?
6. God determined that Lot's daughters would commit incest with their father.
7. And is further compounded by what Jesus Himself said :That there was actually a way that the Sodomites could’ve been saved
(Matthew 11:23).
how do people believe these things about our Holy God ?
Remember God delivers from evil and does not cause evil
James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone.
1 Chronicles 4:10
And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep
me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested.
Psalm 121:7,8
The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul…
Jeremiah 15:21
And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.
hope this helps !!!
(post 1 of 3)
I've read through this at least twice now, and I'll be reading through it a third time as I respond to each point. I've also read a few of the responses on page one. This is not a very difficult post to respond to, so here goes. I'll do my best to be clear, so when I quote from the OP I'll use quote marks and blue font.
"
Eternal / Exhaustive Divine Decree"
I don't really have too much problem with this label. "Exhaustive" can refer to the all-encompassing nature of which Ephesians 1:11 speaks. "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of
him who works all things according to the counsel of his will," (ESV) In light of this verse and many others dealing with more particular instances, Calvinists hold that God's decree, before creation, encompasses all things.
"
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to present problems for Calvinism 's (EDD )."
I appreciate the use of the word "seems" here. It demonstrates at least a little caution, rather than the opposite, brash confidence. So I can appreciate the word's use. With regard to problems for Calvinism, that remains to be seen. We will examine each reason given and see if this opening conclusion/thesis is actually true. We can note, in opening, these reasons are going to come from "Sodom and Gomorrah," a more particular focus. The reasoning is simple enough to follow. The EDD encompasses all things, but here is a particular example that seems to present problems. Let's move on.
"
1. God determined that Sodom would become so wicked."
Ok, so God's eternal decree encompasses all things, and here is a particular instance where God's decree is applied. It involves their wickedness. However, as of yet, there is no argument that demonstrates why this would be a problem. I see only a basic element of logic applied here. Since the decree is all-encompassing, then it follows that the certain particular elements in history are effected by the decree, and in this case the decree led to the fact that Sodom (and Gomorrah) were wicked. No one denies the wickedness of the two cities; their wickedness is something well-known by almost any student of the Bible. However, I repeat, we don't see here any argument why this particular instance's ordaining is a problem for Calvinism. But there are seven points, so perhaps in a later step we will see an argument made, so maybe something will come in the future, so I will have to hold off on my own personal conclusion at this place in writing.
"
2. God determined that their wickedness would include sexual perversion."
So the argument here is to dive down into more particulars. In essence, the magnification level of the microscope is being raised. Point one was about their wickedness, and now point two is delving into greater detail of what this wickedness consists. It consists in "sexual perversion." Once again, we have no argument given as to why this constitutes a problem for Calvinism. We are only receiving the logical ramification of God's decree being over all things. Namely, the particulars are included in the all-encompassing nature of the decree, and this particular deals with "sexual perversion." Five more points remain, so I am awaiting the actual argument that supports the opening conclusion/thesis statement. So let's keep considering the points.
"
3. God determined that Lot would offer his daughters to be abused.."
Another particular example is given regarding Lot's terrible attempt to get the people of the city from harming the angels. To redirect their focus from the angels, Lot tragically presents his daughters as fodder for their corrupt desires. However, once again, I see no argument given as to why this presents a problem for Calvinism. No argument is given to support the opening conclusion/thesis statement; only a further elaboration of the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah's residents. This time Lot was especially focused upon, and his terrible attempt at redirecting the focus of sin.
"
4. Even though God brought Lot's wife out of the city, God determined that she would be lost, in spite of having warned her not to look back."
In this point we see a minor factual error. The angels warned her. Certainly, they were God's messengers, and as God's representatives they were speaking in God's place. So I see some truth, but she was directly warned by the angels; and the angels were not God. However, God did indirectly warn her. Because of God's indirect warning, by means of the angels' direct warning, I grant that this is a very minor factual error. So this point is relegated to a semantic issue worthy of only a little concern. It only represents an ambiguity in Christian's wording.
But let's not miss the point by focusing on semantics. Christian is elaborating upon another particular instance of the exhaustive nature of the decree. At this point, it is easy to see how this is a problem with a supplied argument, but as the wording does not lend itself to actually making a clear argument and case. The words, "
God determined . . .
in spite of having warned her . . ." could be made into an argument, but no argument is actually explicitly given. Does this somehow represent some kind of inconsistency? Sadly, we are not told what exactly the problem is. Because I'm unwilling to put words into Christian's mouth, I'll have to leave off attempting to discern what the argument is. So as of yet, we still do not have an actual argument supporting the opening conclusion/thesis statement. However, we still have points 5, 6, and 7, so maybe Christian is wanting to leave the actual argument for later. Perhaps he is just building particular examples, and then the bomb will get dropped later. That is certainly a technique of inductive argumentation, so let's continue to move through the opening post.
