God is sovereign over human behaviour and decisions

[Apologetic_Warrior]

First, it says, "God did ordain whatsoever comes to pass".

Second, it says, "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures"

Nope. Both cannot be true. IF God did ordain what occurs, THEN He DID ordain sin, and that would be in a causative sense.

If God ordained sin, then He IS the author of sin. Period. Anything you may offer in argument is wasted.

First of all, let's go to Scripture:

Eph 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Acts 15:18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Second let's see how the word "ordain" is defined both in Strong's and Noah Webster (1828):

Strong's

G4309
προορίζω
proorizō
pro-or-id'-zo
From G4253 and G3724; to limit in advance, that is, (figuratively) predetermine:—determine before, ordain, predestinate.

Noah Webster

ORDA'IN, v.t. [L. ordino, from ordo, order.]
1. Properly, to set; to establish in a particular office or order; hence, to invest with a ministerial function or sacerdotal power; to introduce and establish or settle in the pastoral office with the customary forms and solemnities; as, to ordain a minister of the gospel. In America, men are ordained over a particular church and congregation, or as evangelists without the charge of a particular church, or as deacons in the episcopal church.
2. To appoint; to decree.
Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month. 1 Ki 12.
As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.
Acts 13.
3. To set; to establish; to institute; to constitute.
Mulmutius ordained our laws.
4. To set apart for an office; to appoint.
Jesus ordained twelve that they should be with him. Mark 3.
5. To appoint; to prepare.
For Tophet is ordained of old. Isa 30.

SO WHERE EXACTLY DOES THE DEFINITION OF ORDAIN MEAN TO CAUSE DIRECTLY OF NECESSITY?

This contradicted statement attempts to be speaking out of both sides of the mouth, saying different and contradictory things. Can't have both.

The truth is that God ISN'T the author of sin. He didn't ordain it. He knew it would occur, and allowed it. Which is different than saying that He ordained it.

Example: David "ordained" the murder of Uriah the Hittite. iow, David was the author of the murder. He didn't actually carry out the deed, but he authored it.

Whoever "ordains" anything IS the author of it.

I suggest you mull this over. It's a serious flaw in Calvinism.

I suggest you go over the doctrine of Creation, which certainly is not exclusive to Calvinists. ALL Christians agree that GOD is the CREATOR of EVERYTHING, including Angels that would rebel, including Lucifer/Satan. Again, all Christian believe this, it is nothing new, and is biblical doctrine. ALL (Orthodox) Christians agree that GOD is the CREATOR and HE KNOWS EVERYTHING, the past, present, future, and has known everything from all eternity. Please explain to me how the choices of HIS creatures could ever surprise HIM. So all Christians believe that evil is NEVER out of God's control, at no moment could GOD not intervene and deliver from evil. So that being the case, we really have to accept that not only does God allow evil, in some sense it must be said He has a purpose in it, if He has a purpose in it, at some level or sense yes it is part of His will. However, that in no way implies that GOD has EVER been the DIRECT cause of any evil, just as GOD ORDAINED THE INCARNATION, THE CRUCIFIXION, THE DEATH, AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST! The great evils inflicted upon the Son of God, the King of Kings, were foreordained, and no God did not directly cause those evils, rather His purpose and plan accomplished through secondary causes, that is the evil men whom had no idea they were crucifying the Lord of Glory, the Prince of Peace, they had no idea they were actually doing the will of God, yes in a sense in has to be so, for nobody believes the events necessary for the redemption of God's people happened by chance (as though chance could be in control, sovereign, out of God's control) and as though God the Father and God the Son had not planned redemption before the foundation of the world, as though God did not have the foreknowledge and was not pleased with the results. Joseph's brothers were secondary causes, and did evil to Joseph, all according to the purpose and will of God, we read:

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."

 

[FreeGrace2]

Second let's see how the word "ordain" is defined both in Strong's and Noah Webster (1828):

Strong's

G4309
προορίζω
proorizō
pro-or-id'-zo
From G4253 and G3724; to limit in advance, that is, (figuratively) predetermine:—determine before, ordain, predestinate.

Noah Webster

ORDA'IN, v.t. [L. ordino, from ordo, order.]
1. Properly, to set; to establish in a particular office or order; hence, to invest with a ministerial function or sacerdotal power; to introduce and establish or settle in the pastoral office with the customary forms and solemnities; as, to ordain a minister of the gospel. In America, men are ordained over a particular church and congregation, or as evangelists without the charge of a particular church, or as deacons in the episcopal church.
2. To appoint; to decree.
Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month. 1 Ki 12.
As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.
Acts 13.
3. To set; to establish; to institute; to constitute.
Mulmutius ordained our laws.
4. To set apart for an office; to appoint.
Jesus ordained twelve that they should be with him. Mark 3.
5. To appoint; to prepare.
For Tophet is ordained of old. Isa 30.

SO WHERE EXACTLY DOES THE DEFINITION OF ORDAIN MEAN TO CAUSE DIRECTLY OF NECESSITY?

Odd that you don't see it in the definitions you provided, for example:
#2, to decree. The one who decrees something is in fact authoring it, just as your example of Jeroboam shows, and my example of King David ordaining the murder of Uriah.
#3 to insititute. You really don't see 'causal' here??

#1, 4 and 5 don't apply.

I demonstrated the contradiction in the SCF and you didn't refute it.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Odd that you don't see it in the definitions you provided, for example:
#2, to decree. The one who decrees something is in fact authoring it, just as your example of Jeroboam shows, and my example of King David ordaining the murder of Uriah.
#3 to insititute. You really don't see 'causal' here??

#1, 4 and 5 don't apply.

From Noah Webster (1828)

DECREE, n. [L. To judge; to divide.]
1. Judicial decision, or determination of a litigated cause; as a decree of the court of chancery. The decision of a court of equity is called a decree; that of a court of law, a judgment.
2. In the civil law, a determination or judgment of the emperor on a suit between parties.
3. An edict or law made by a council for regulating any business within their jurisdiction; as the decrees of ecclesiastical councils.
4. In general, an order, edict or law made by a superior as a rule to govern inferiors.
There went a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2.
5. Established law, or rule.
He made a decree for the rain. Job 28.
6. In theology, predetermined purpose of God; the purpose or determination of an immutable Being, whose plan of operations is, like himself, unchangeable.
DECREE, v.t.
1. To determine judicially; to resolve by sentence; as, the court decreed that the property should be restored; or they decreed a restoration of the property.
2. To determine or resolve legislatively; to fix or appoint; to set or constitute by edict or in purpose.
Thou shalt decree a thing, and it shall be established. Job 22.
Let us not be solicitous to know what God has decreed concerning us.

I demonstrated the contradiction in the SCF and you didn't refute it.

I noticed that you ignored the majority of my response, and the refutation of what you perceive as contradiction, with Scripture, definitions, and historical theology.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I noticed that you ignored the majority of my response, and the refutation of what you perceive as contradiction, with Scripture, definitions, and historical theology.

What you perceive as a refutation I don't. To "decree" is "to determine". iow, If God decreed sin, then He determined it to exist. How does that not make Him the creator of what exists?

And even your own example of Jeroboam demonstrates that ordaining (the word in the WCF) means to author:
Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month. 1 Ki 12.

And my example of King David who ordained the murder of Uriah.

 

[Hammster]

What you perceive as a refutation I don't. To "decree" is "to determine". iow, If God decreed sin, then He determined it to exist. How does that not make Him the creator of what exists?

And even your own example of Jeroboam demonstrates that ordaining (the word in the WCF) means to author:
Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month. 1 Ki 12.

And my example of King David who ordained the murder of Uriah.

So your view is that God didn't decree sin. That means it happened apart from His will. Which means that He was powerless to stop it.

What a puny view of God you have.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

What you perceive as a refutation I don't. To "decree" is "to determine". iow, If God decreed sin, then He determined it to exist. How does that not make Him the creator of what exists?

And even your own example of Jeroboam demonstrates that ordaining (the word in the WCF) means to author:
Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month. 1 Ki 12.

And my example of King David who ordained the murder of Uriah.

Arguments that add nothing to history are ultimately pointless. Instead of repetition, we should be trying to add something to the discussion that is new. Your contention was dealt with many years ago in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

God from all eternity did by the most 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.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So your view is that God didn't decree sin. That means it happened apart from His will. Which means that He was powerless to stop it.

No, once again, wrong. My view is that the omniscience of God knew that sin would occur and permitted it to occur. Is that more clear?

What a puny view of God you have.

No, rather, what a misrepresentation of my view that you have presented.

If you acknowledge that regarding sin, God permitted what He knew would happen, I have no problem with it. But given all that Calvinism and the WCF says, seems to me you guys really use the word "decree" to mean authored/caused/created it.

So, agree with "permit" and I'm with you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Arguments that add nothing to history are ultimately pointless. Instead of repetition, we should be trying to add something to the discussion that is new. Your contention was dealt with many years ago in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I'd always much rather quote examples from Scripture than take anything from a contradicted man created document. Every time.

And by "repetetition", you mean why did I repeat my example even though y'all ignored it the first time?

 

[Hammster]

No, once again, wrong. My view is that the omniscience of God knew that sin would occur and permitted it to occur. Is that more clear?

Could He stop sin from happening? Or was He hostage to His omnipotence?

 

[Hammster]

I'd always much rather quote examples from Scripture than take anything from a contradicted man created document. Every time.

Oh, like all of the stuff you post?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I'd always much rather quote examples from Scripture than take anything from a contradicted man created document. Every time.

Every commentary ever given by a person, including every single post that you have made, is subject to the same possibility. To infer that you are somehow free from this is futile, even if you were to only quote Scripture every time you post (which is not the case). If the Scriptures are interpreted incorrectly, then what power do they hold?

I hate having to do the work for you, but since you are ignorant of the Reformed position and the arguments that have been made many years ago against that which you are proposing, I have included a link to the Westminster Confession, footnoted showing where the concepts were drawn from Scripture. Again, you can argue with the interpretation of the proof texts, but to say that the document is not Scripturally based is at this point a misrepresentation. For your aide, the particular chapter of discussion is Chapter 3.

And by "repetetition", you mean why did I repeat my example even though y'all ignored it the first time?

No. I mean that you are proposing arguments that have been made [and refuted] for hundreds of years. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion if all you are doing is rehashing arguments from your predecessors (without even giving them credit, I might add). Please don't tell me I have ignored anything, I just came into this thread and should not be expected to respond to every single point made so far before I can contribute.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Could He stop sin from happening? Or was He hostage to His omnipotence?

Seriously, I don't understand the silliness of your questions. Your questions insinuate that I don't have ANY understanding of God.

Can God stop sin from happening? Of course He can.

Can God be "hostage" to His omnipotence? God cannot be hostage to anything.

Was that clear enough? And quit with the ridiculous questions. Please return to serious discussion. This stuff is a waste of time. A thread filler only. We don't need it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:

I'd always much rather quote examples from Scripture than take anything from a contradicted man created document. Every time.

And hammster retorted with this:

Oh, like all of the stuff you post?

So, you think that I use material from a "man created document"?? Which document do you think I take material from? Can you name one?

The context of my comment was in reference to another poster quoting from the WCF and various Calvinist authors, who produce documents.

So, your comment was way out of line, which I know you know.

I've not quoted from ANY of "man's documents". All my quotes have been Scripture. I know that you know better.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Every commentary ever given by a person, including every single post that you have made, is subject to the same possibility. To infer that you are somehow free from this is futile, even if you were to only quote Scripture every time you post (which is not the case). If the Scriptures are interpreted incorrectly, then what power do they hold?

First, I've "inferred" nothing. Sorry you think that I did.

Second, when Scriptures are interpreted incorrectly, you're right, they hold no power. False doctrine is just that; false. We need to understand what is meant by what was written.

I hate having to do the work for you, but since you are ignorant of the Reformed position and the arguments that have been made many years ago against that which you are proposing, I have included a link to the Westminster Confession, footnoted showing where the concepts were drawn from Scripture. Again, you can argue with the interpretation of the proof texts, but to say that the document is not Scripturally based is at this point a misrepresentation. For your aide, the particular chapter of discussion is Chapter 3.

What I did was demonstrate HOW chapter 3 was internally contradicted. And you are right about one thing: about how I "can argue with the interpretation of the proof texts".

No. I mean that you are proposing arguments that have been made [and refuted] for hundreds of years.

Well, I guess I just missed all those refutations for "hundreds of years". That means they were made way before my time. So why didn't you just drag one or more of them out and present them? Would that be too difficult?

[QUTOE] It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion if all you are doing is rehashing arguments from your predecessors (without even giving them credit, I might add).[/QUOTE]
Uh, my "predecessor" here is the writers of Scripture. And I always cite my source (book, ch and verse).

Please don't tell me I have ignored anything, I just came into this thread and should not be expected to respond to every single point made so far before I can contribute.

Looking forward to one of those refutations that you mentioned.

 

[Hammster]

Seriously, I don't understand the silliness of your questions. Your questions insinuate that I don't have ANY understanding of God.

Can God stop sin from happening? Of course He can.

Can God be "hostage" to His omnipotence? God cannot be hostage to anything.

Was that clear enough? And quit with the ridiculous questions. Please return to serious discussion. This stuff is a waste of time. A thread filler only. We don't need it.

Since God can stop sin from happening, and He's not hostage to His omnipotence, then it must have been His will that it occur.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:

And hammster retorted with this:

So, you think that I use material from a "man created document"?? Which document do you think I take material from? Can you name one?

The context of my comment was in reference to another poster quoting from the WCF and various Calvinist authors, who produce documents.

So, your comment was way out of line, which I know you know.

I've not quoted from ANY of "man's documents". All my quotes have been Scripture. I know that you know better.

Um, all of your posts are man created documents. You are giving your view of scripture. It's just not as organized as the different confessions.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Well, I guess I just missed all those refutations for "hundreds of years". That means they were made way before my time. So why didn't you just drag one or more of them out and present them? Would that be too difficult?

What do you think I just did???

I also find it sad that I need to show you what writers of the past have said. If you really cared about the subject you would be reading them yourself.

What I did was demonstrate HOW chapter 3 was internally contradicted. And you are right about one thing: about how I "can argue with the interpretation of the proof texts".

Please quote yourself where you have properly refuted the Westminster Confession.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Since God can stop sin from happening, and He's not hostage to His omnipotence, then it must have been His will that it occur.

Sure, He permits sin to occur. Obviously. I've never said otherwise. Obviously.

But it is the Calvinists who use God's sovereignty as the power behind His "will" in what happens. As in He wanted it to occur. And therefore "made" it occur.

Semantics is always a problem, since it's hard to pin down those of other views.

You see, God does allow things to occur that He doesn't approve of. Do you agree with that?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Um, all of your posts are man created documents. You are giving your view of scripture. It's just not as organized as the different confessions.

I seriously think your calling my "posts" a document are a bit far fetched. But, ok, if you want to.

So, what in your own mind isn't so "organized" in my "document" as different confessions. Can you actually show me?

 

[Hammster]

Sure, He permits sin to occur. Obviously. I've never said otherwise. Obviously.

But it is the Calvinists who use God's sovereignty as the power behind His "will" in what happens. As in He wanted it to occur. And therefore "made" it occur.

Semantics is always a problem, since it's hard to pin down those of other views.

You see, God does allow things to occur that He doesn't approve of. Do you agree with that?

Couldn't God have stopped Adam from sinning by not allowing Satan in the Garden? Yes. By not even giving a law to disobey? Yes

Hmm. Seems God had an actual purpose for sin.