The inconsistencies of the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace

[FreeGrace2]

Dr. Jack said: ↑
So God ordered Adam to sin ... but what did God do to make Adam choose to sin?

I don’t know what God did so that Adam would sin and make us need a Savior so that the Godhead could be glorified at the cross. There’s not a lot of “how” in the Bible. Just “what”.

What a minute!! Where does the Bible say that God ordered Adam, or anyone else, for that matter, to sin?

Your claim that the Bible just explains "what" in that God orders sin is bogus.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I don’t know what God did so that Adam would sin and make us need a Savior so that the Godhead could be glorified at the cross. There’s not a lot of “how” in the Bible. Just “what”.

There is an alternative answer ... but ...
it seems to me that you just said that God created a problem, just so He could fix it, just to bring glory to Himself.

Pause for a moment, and think about that.

 

[Hammster]

There is an alternative answer ... but ...
it seems to me that you just said that God created a problem, just so He could fix it, just to bring glory to Himself.

Pause for a moment, and think about that.

Not “just”. The cross was the whole point of creation. So there needed to be sin.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Not “just”. The cross was the whole point of creation. So there needed to be sin.

No, I don't think you get the big picture at all.

But, the mere fact that you say "there needed to be sin", means that God purposefully brought sin into the equation. How then can God NOT be the author of sin?

Now, I remind you, there is an alternative perspective, but Reformed Theology won't accept it.

 

[Hammster]

No, I don't think you get the big picture at all.

But, the mere fact that you say "there needed to be sin", means that God purposefully brought sin into the equation. How then can God NOT be the author of sin?

Now, I remind you, there is an alternative perspective, but Reformed Theology won't accept it.

Okay.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Dr. Jack said: ↑
There is an alternative answer ... but ...
it seems to me that you just said that God created a problem, just so He could fix it, just to bring glory to Himself.

Pause for a moment, and think about that.

Not “just”. The cross was the whole point of creation. So there needed to be sin.

No. The cross was the SOLUTION to creation. Think about that for a moment.

So your second sentence is incorrect. Sin wasn't needed. The cross was needed, because of the sin that would come as a result of creation. Which began in heaven, not on earth. Think about that for a moment.

I think you have it all backward.

What you can't wriggle out of is your statement, "whatever happens is ordered by God" in post #122.

That directly makes sin ordered by God. Which is preposterous.

 

[Hammster]

Dr. Jack said: ↑
There is an alternative answer ... but ...
it seems to me that you just said that God created a problem, just so He could fix it, just to bring glory to Himself.

Pause for a moment, and think about that.

No. The cross was the SOLUTION to creation. Think about that for a moment.

So your second sentence is incorrect. Sin wasn't needed. The cross was needed, because of the sin that would come as a result of creation. Which began in heaven, not on earth. Think about that for a moment.

I think you have it all backward.

What you can't wriggle out of is your statement, "whatever happens is ordered by God" in post #122.

That directly makes sin ordered by God. Which is preposterous.

So your proposition is that the cross was reactionary? In other words, there’s was a possibility that it wouldn’t be necessary?

 

[Dr. Jack]

So your proposition is that the cross was reactionary? In other words, there’s was a possibility that it wouldn’t be necessary?

Not at all.

In God's omniscience, He know prior to the creation every event, thought, and decision that would ever be made by both Himself, and every created being. This does not mean He decreed them all, it means He KNEW them all.

He knew Adam would choose sin, and knew knew that He, (God) would be the Redeemer of mankind.

In God's sovereignty He chose to elect those whom would freely acknowledge their need for Him. He knew who would, and He knew who would not.

Yes, God created souls that He knew would see all the evidence of His existence, His Godhead, His being the only Redeemer for mankind and yet refuse to acknowledge their need for Him.

Now before you rail on that idealism, compare that to the position that God literally created souls to burn in the Lake of Fire for eternity. The difference between these two views is that all souls in the former could be saved from damnation; while only select souls would be saved in the latter.

Consider this:

A man approaches a beach with warning signs that tell him not to swim beyond a particular distance to avoid rip currents. A life guard is perched high above the area to rescue those whom they know (in advance ... it always happens), will 1) ignore the signs; and 2) think they have the ability to out swim the rip currents. (Now the only rules the life guards must follow are: A) the swimmer must ask to be rescued; and 2) the swimmer may not assist in any way in his own rescue. (Meaning he may not try to swim along with the life guard. The swimmer must allow the life guard to do all the work to rescue him.

Man #1
Ignores the signs swims out, gets pulled down by the rip currents. Sees the life guard, refuses to submit to the fact that he is drowning, then dies trying.

Man #2
Ignores the signs swims out, gets pulled down by the rip currents. Sees the life guard, calls for help, but when the life guard shows up, refuses to allow the life guard to do all the work. Continues to try to save his own life, while still refusing to simply allow the life guard to do all the work to save him ... dies trying.

Man #3
Ignores the signs swims out, gets pulled down by the rip currents. Sees the life guard, calls for help, and when the life guard shows up, pleads for the life guard to save him, because he knows he will certainly die if the life guard does not save him.

The life guard says, "Do absolutely NOTHING".

The life guard carefully reaches under the swimmer's right arm from behind, reaches across to the man's left shoulder, and says, "Trust me, lay back, and do nothing; I will take you all the way to safety". The life guard then carrys the swimmer back to the beach safely. His life is spared.

All three broke the law posted on the beach warning them of the danger. There were specific rules set for the life guard that did not allow him to save anyone who would not willingly allow the life guard to save them. Hence, it was NOT the responsibility of the life guard to save anyone who would not ask him to save them, according to those rules. (They had already violated the law, even though no one had set them up in any way; and thereby forfeited the right to be automatically rescued.)

The ONLY difference between the last man, and the previous two, was that he came to the realization that he would absolutely die unless he allowed the life guard to save him, the life guards way. He did no work, he simply stopped trying to save himself, and trusted in the life guard to save him.

Did he deserve to be saved more than the other two? No. He actually deserved to drown. But, because he acknowledged that, he begged to be saved, in spite of deserving to die.

And so it is with our Redeemer ...

 

[His student]

I have tried to explain in detail because I thought you were really interested in finding what I believe and why and perhaps correcting any misrepresentation you have made over time. But it seems that a lot of my writing has been wasted on you and you haven’t even tried to understand what I am saying.

So I’m going to dialog with you in shorter posts hoping they we don’t just end up spouting one liners and get nowhere – in which case I’ll call it a day.

Nice horse story.

Of course, in your example, violence was done of the will of the creature. That is to say that he was coerced to drink. The WCF statement doesn’t allow for that.

“Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.” And “nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established”

You are saying that God manipulated the circumstances in the Garden of Eden to cause Adam to sin. Isn't that just a bit deceptive?

There you go again. God did not “cause Adam to sin”. The choice Adam made out of his unimpeded free will was the vehicle for Adams sin.

Deceptive is not a word I would choose to use. But – as you yourself have said previously – it was a bit of a “set up”, crudely speaking. What observant reader could say that it wasn’t?

I am saying that the innumerable activities of the Word of God created certain circumstances wherein Adam was known to be going to make certain choices. (God’s omniscience comes into play here.)

I hope you're not saying that God didn't create the circumstances surrounding the fall and or that God didn't know exactly what would happen under those circumstances?

Let’s not have any silliness here about God’s omniscience being controlled by or coming from His sovereignty according to Calvinism – as what’s his name would put it. All we know is that God knew exactly what would happen if He acted in certain ways before He acted in those certain ways.

The simple biblical fact is that the activities of God’s Word created and sustained the circumstances in which Adam would sin – just as God always knew that he would under exactly those circumstances (what I have been calling the “paradigm” in which Adam made choices).

God’s Word is what the WCF calls His decree that which is sent forth to accomplish everything He intends that He accomplish. It will not return to Him having done otherwise. That goes for His spoken Word, His written Word, or His living Word.

Speaking of that Word, In the most massive understatement in history, John tells us:

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.” John 21:25

No kidding – since everything in the universe has it’s being in the Word of God – including you and me, Adam, Satan, the serpent, the tree, and the fruit.

There are those who, like yourself, see the God of the scriptures as being reduced to just kind of a passive observer in the affairs of men. He issues decrees from time to time. But, like a Caesar, He is powerless to be absolutely sure they actually happen – He will just execute vengeance on those He catches up with after finding that they disobeyed one of His decrees.

But they are wrong. The Word of God is living and active in His creation in ways almost unimaginable and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

The WCF statement covers all the bases and has it correct when it tells us that He has decreed 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.

Now, if you choose to, you can reject part of that statement and leave it out of your representation of what we believe so as to misrepresent the teachings of your brothers and sister.

Or you can settle in and think through these subjects in a clear and fair way. If you do that – you will end up with the same statement or something equivalent to it.

 

[His student]

Man #3
Ignores the signs swims out, gets pulled down by the rip currents. Sees the life guard, calls for help, and when the life guard shows up, pleads for the life guard to save him, because he knows he will certainly die if the life guard does not save him.

The life guard says, "Do absolutely NOTHING".

The life guard carefully reaches under the swimmer's right arm from behind, reaches across to the man's left shoulder, and says, "Trust me, lay back, and do nothing; I will take you all the way to safety". The life guard then carrys the swimmer back to the beach safely. His life is spared..

Actually that’s not a bad rendition of the gospel

It’s pretty much in line with the gospel preached around the world by Reformed preachers for hundreds of years.

All three broke the law posted on the beach warning them of the danger. There were specific rules set for the life guard that did not allow him to save anyone who would not willing allow the life guard to save them. Hence, it was NOT the responsibility of the life guard to save anyone who would not save them, according to those rules. (They had already violated the law,

A little disjointed in the wording. But pretty much in line with Reformed teaching.

……even though no one had set them up in any way; and thereby forfeited the right to be automatically rescued.)

I have no idea what that means.

The ONLY difference between the last man, and the previous two, was that he came to the realization that he would absolutely die unless he allowed the life guard to save him, the life guards way. He did no work, he simply stopped trying to save himself, and trusted in the life guard to save him.

Right on. Reformed teaching all the way. You must be a Reformed Baptist.

Did he deserve to be saved more than the other two? No. He actually deserved to drown. But, because he acknowledged that, he begged to be saved, in spite of deserving to die. And so it is with our Redeemer ...

Good Reformed teaching – right out of the Calvinism playbook..

There is one caveat to their teaching compared to that presented here – even though it plays absolutely no part in a gospel presentation to the world.

The Father of the life guard has to get the attention of the drowning man first so that He can be saved. Before that – he’s busy swimming away from the life guard along with the tide.

The Father may whisper to the man in a still small voice, like He does for many who change direction and come to the Lord, or He may slap him up-side the head like He did for the Apostle Paul and me. But the rebellious sinner must be drawn to the Son by the Father or the Son cannot save Him. He doesn’t do that for everyone in the same way. Some He communicates with only through the general revelation He has given to them. Some – on the other hand – are visited with further grace.

 

[Hammster]

He knew Adam would choose sin, and knew knew that He, (God) would be the Redeemer of mankind.

Let’s look at this. If God didn’t want Adam to sin, could He have done anything to prevent it?

 

[Dr. Jack]

I have tried to explain in detail because I thought you were really interested in finding what I believe and why and perhaps correcting any misrepresentation you have made over time. But it seems that a lot of my writing has been wasted on you and you haven’t even tried to understand what I am saying.

So I’m going to dialog with you in shorter posts hoping they we don’t just end up spouting one liners and get nowhere – in which case I’ll call it a day.

Nice horse story.

Of course, in your example, violence was done of the will of the creature. That is to say that he was coerced to drink. The WCF statement doesn’t allow for that.

“Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.” And “nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established”

There you go again. God did not “cause Adam to sin”. The choice Adam made out of his unimpeded free will was the vehicle for Adams sin.

Deceptive is not a word I would choose to use. But – as you yourself have said previously – it was a bit of a “set up”, crudely speaking. What observant reader could say that it wasn’t?

I think the observant reader would say, "Adam blew it" ... but would not consider it a setup.

I am saying that the innumerable activities of the Word of God created certain circumstances wherein Adam was known to be going to make certain choices. (God’s omniscience comes into play here.)

Let’s not have any silliness here about God’s omniscience being controlled by or coming from His sovereignty according to Calvinism – as what’s his name would put it. All we know is that God knew exactly what would happen if He acted in certain ways before He acted in those certain ways.

Okay, wait a minute ... you just said, "All we know is that God knew exactly what would happen if He acted in certain ways before He acted in those certain ways."

Okay, look at what you said ... "God knew exactly what would happen if" (that's conditional) "He acted in certain ways before" (So God learned how Adam would act in the future, based upon the way he acted BEFORE) ... "He acted in those certain ways."

So God had knowledge of what Adam would do, based upon what Adam did before, under the same "certain" conditions. You just said God learned the future, based upon the past.

The simple biblical fact is that the activities of God’s Word created and sustained the circumstances in which Adam would sin – just as God always knew that he would under exactly those circumstances (what I have been calling the “paradigm” in which Adam made choices).

You really need to distinguish the difference between foreknowing, and decreeing.

God’s Word is what the WCF calls His decree that which is sent forth to accomplish everything He intends that He accomplish. It will not return to Him having done otherwise. That goes for His spoken Word, His written Word, or His living Word.

You just stated: " ... the WCF calls His decree that which is sent forth to accomplish everything He intends that He accomplish."

Okay, again, when Ceaser made the decree that all the world should be taxed, that decree was sent forth to accomplish everything he intended to accomplish; was it not?

Meaning, decrees are in fact immutable, and there is no choice but to do what is decreed.

Speaking of that Word, In the most massive understatement in history, John tells us:

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.” John 21:25

No kidding – since everything in the universe has it’s being in the Word of God – including you and me, Adam, Satan, the serpent, the tree, and the fruit.

There are those who, like yourself, see the God of the scriptures as being reduced to just kind of a passive observer in the affairs of men.

You keep insinuating that is my position, but that is NOT my position at all. I have heard many Reformed Theology apologists make that assertion, but it simply isn't true.

What is the purpose of praying, if you think God is only a passive observer?

He issues decrees from time to time. But, like a Caesar, He is powerless to be absolutely sure they actually happen – He will just execute vengeance on those He catches up with after finding that they disobeyed one of His decrees.

When have I ever said anything that resembles what you just attributed to my view?

But they are wrong. The Word of God is living and active in His creation in ways almost unimaginable and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

The WCF statement covers all the bases and has it correct when it tells us that He has decreed 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.

How is what God did with Adam any different than what my dad did with the horse (according to Calvinism).

Now, if you choose to, you can reject part of that statement and leave it out of your representation of what we believe so as to misrepresent the teachings of your brothers and sister.

Or you can settle in and think through these subjects in a clear and fair way. If you do that – you will end up with the same statement or something equivalent to it.

So I in other words, unless I agree with your position, I haven't spent an ample amount of time thinking through it.

Do you have any idea how much time I have sent studying Calvinism ... as well as a few other "religious views"?

 

[Dr. Jack]

Actually that’s not a bad rendition of the gospel

It’s pretty much in line with the gospel preached around the world by Reformed preachers for hundreds of years.

A little disjointed in the wording. But pretty much in line with Reformed teaching.

I have no idea what that means.
Right on. Reformed teaching all the way. You must be a Reformed Baptist.

Good Reformed teaching – right out of the Calvinism playbook..

There is one caveat to their teaching compared to that presented here – even though it plays absolutely no part in a gospel presentation to the world.

The Father of the life guard has to get the attention of the drowning man first so that He can be saved. Before that – he’s busy swimming away from the life guard along with the tide.

The Father may whisper to the man in a still small voice, like He does for many who change direction and come to the Lord, or He may slap him up-side the head like He did for the Apostle Paul and me. But the rebellious sinner must be drawn to the Son by the Father or the Son cannot save Him. He doesn’t do that for everyone in the same way. Some He communicates with only through the general revelation He has given to them. Some – on the other hand – are visited with further grace.

None of the three were "decreed" to go to the beach.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Let’s look at this. If God didn’t want Adam to sin, could He have done anything to prevent it?

The short answer is: God is sovereign, and could have done whatsoever He wished ... But as I already stated ... that wasn't His purpose.

I said:

He knew Adam would choose sin, and knew knew that He, (God) would be the Redeemer of mankind.

In God's sovereignty He chose to elect those whom would freely acknowledge their need for Him. He knew who would, and He knew who would not.

Yes, God created souls that He knew would see all the evidence of His existence, His Godhead, His being the only Redeemer for mankind and yet refuse to acknowledge their need for Him.

Now before you rail on that idealism, compare that to the position that God literally created souls to burn in the Lake of Fire for eternity. The difference between these two views is that all souls in the former could be saved from damnation; while only select souls would be saved in the latter.

As part of God's sovereign plan, He chose to allow sin (not decree it, nor order it, nor ordain it, nor predestinate it), knowing that He would then present Himself to man as one the could acknowledge as Redeemer.

 

[Hammster]

The short answer is: God is sovereign, and could have done whatsoever He wished ... But as I already stated ... that wasn't His purpose.

I said:

As part of God's sovereign plan, He chose to allow sin (not decree it, nor order it, nor ordain it, nor predestinate it), knowing that He would then present Himself to man as one the could acknowledge as Redeemer.

It’s a difference without a distinction. God knew it would work out that way. The cross was the goal. So you can spin it however you want, but He not only knew what Adam would do, but what He would do and why. Any other choice makes Him reactionary, and that not sovereign.

 

[His student]

I think the observant reader would say, "Adam blew it" ... but would not consider it a setup.

Set-up is a term you used in one of your posts. That's the only reason I am using it here. But it's not an altogether wrong term to use so long as it's used with respect for God's doing it for a good purpose.

Okay, wait a minute ... you just said, "All we know is that God knew exactly what would happen if He acted in certain ways before He acted in those certain ways."

Okay, look at what you said ... "God knew exactly what would happen if" (that's conditional) "He acted in certain ways before"

Of course it was conditional before there was a world. No one forced God to make a decision to create the world and no one forced Him to carry that decision through. You're playing games again.

(So God learned how Adam would act in the future, based upon the way he acted BEFORE) ... "He acted in those certain ways."

So God had knowledge of what Adam would do, based upon what Adam did before, under the same "certain" conditions. You just said God learned the future, based upon the past.

First off - you forgot a capital letter and made my statement talk about what Adam did rather than God. In so doing (on purpose?) you misrepresented what I believe. Par for the course I suppose. But please stop doing such things.

You really need to distinguish the difference between foreknowing, and decreeing.

I am distinguishing the difference between foreknowing and decreeing.

Foreknowledge is simply a facet of God's omniscience.

Decreeing is the sending forth of His Word to accomplish what He wants accomplished. You are simply not acknowledging that the sending forth of His Word is the catalyst for what God knew would happen if He did so.

You just stated: " ... the WCF calls His decree that which is sent forth to accomplish everything He intends that He accomplish."

Okay, again, when Ceaser made the decree that all the world should be taxed, that decree was sent forth to accomplish everything he intended to accomplish; was it not?

Meaning, decrees are in fact immutable, and there is no choice but to do what is decreed.

The difference between Caesar and God in your example is that Caesar simply issues the decree and God goes along with everyone under that decree to be sure the decree accomplishes everything He sent Him forth to accomplish.

In the case of Caesar's decree - there was indeed a choice to do or not do what is decreed. You can bet that the likes of Barabbas didn't comply.

What is the purpose of praying, if you think God is only a passive observer?

The difference between us is that you pick and choose when God is involved and I say He always is - His being omnipresent and everything having it's being in His Word.

When have I ever said anything that resembles what you just attributed to my view?

You teach that God didn't send His Word forth to accomplish exactly what He wanted accomplished in everything that came to pass. You even misrepresent other's beliefs when they do teach that He does.

How is what God did with Adam any different than what my dad did with the horse (according to Calvinism).

Your dad manipulated the horse's will to be sure that he drank of necessity through the changing of the nature within the horse for a time until he drank.

God didn't manipulate Adam"s will to be sure he sinned. As the WCF says:

"God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it"

God simply involved Himself in the circumstances around Adam in such a way that Adam would indeed do exactly what God always knew he would do under those circumstances.

So I in other words, unless I agree with your position, I haven't spent an ample amount of time thinking through it.

Since my position is steeped in Biblical truth - that is correct.

Do you have any idea how much time I have sent studying Calvinism ... as well as a few other "religious views"?

No - I only observe that it appears that much of the the time you've spent has been severely tainted by your prejudice against many of the teachings of the Calvinists.

None of the three were "decreed" to go to the beach.

I disagree. All were decreed to do exactly what came to pass. But they chose to do so out of their own wills. It is just as the WCF so concisely points out.

The things I'm pointing out are unassailable truths from the scriptures.

For what it's worth - if you continue to argue for it's own sake - I'll be calling it a thread.

 

[Dr. Jack]

It’s a difference without a distinction.

That is absolute nonsense.
A decree places the one authoritatively making the decree as the origin of the event, and he is thereby directly linked to the event.
E.g. 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. Luke

Ceaser made the decree, therefore he was both the author of it, and the authority behind it. The end result was directly linked to Ceaser himself. The people moved, and paid the tax BECAUSE the decree was made by Ceaser.

Ceaser knew that when the sun went down (or at least appeared to), that it would get dark. Yet Ceaser had no control over the sun, or it getting dark.

Hence, Ceaser could have knowledge of an event, and not be the cause of that event.

That is the distinction between a decree, and foreknowledge. The former is directly linked to the cause of the event; while the latter has no link to the cause. And THAT is the PRECISE difference between my view of theology and the Reformed Theology position.

God knew it would work out that way. The cross was the goal. So you can spin it however you want, but He not only knew what Adam would do, but what He would do and why.

Your second statement above ... "He not only knew what Adam would do, but what He would do and why" is true; but that still doesn't equate to God decreeing it to be so.

Any other choice makes Him reactionary, and that not sovereign.

That is a false dichotomy.

 

[His student]

That is the distinction between a decree, and foreknowledge. The former is directly linked to the cause of the event; while the latter has no link to the cause.

That is absolutely correct. God is what the WCF calls the 1st cause of all that happens.

But He often brings to pass what He has predestined to come to pass through the free choices made by men - and that without doing violence to that will.

And THAT is the PRECISE difference between my view of theology and the Reformed Theology position.

No -your theology is precisely in keeping with Reformed theology.

You've thrown up so many straw men misrepresentations of Reformed beliefs over the years that you don't seem to be able to recognize when you're doing it.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Set-up is a term you used in one of your posts. That's the only reason I am using it here. But it's not an altogether wrong term to use so long as it's used with respect for God's doing it for a good purpose.

Of course it was conditional before there was a world. No one forced God to make a decision to create the world and no one forced Him to carry that decision through. You're playing games again.

First off - you forgot a capital letter and made my statement talk about what Adam did rather than God. In so doing (on purpose?) you misrepresented what I believe. Par for the course I suppose. But please stop doing such things.

The lower case "h" was an oversight by me because the sentence made no sense otherwise.

I am distinguishing the difference between foreknowing and decreeing.

Foreknowledge is simply a facet of God's omniscience.

Decreeing is the sending forth of His Word to accomplish what He wants accomplished. You are simply not acknowledging that the sending forth of His Word is the catalyst for what God knew would happen if He did so.

The difference between Caesar and God in your example is that Caesar simply issues the decree and God goes along with everyone under that decree to be sure the decree accomplishes everything He sent Him forth to accomplish.

In the case of Caesar's decree - there was indeed a choice to do or not do what is decreed. You can bet that the likes of Barabbas didn't comply.

The difference between us is that you pick and choose when God is involved and I say He always is - His being omnipresent.

You teach that God didn't send His Word forth to accomplish exactly what He wanted accomplished in everything that came to pass. You even misrepresent others beliefs when they do teach that He does.
Your dad manipulated the horse's will to be sure that he drank of necessity through the changing of the nature within the horse for a time until he drank.

God didn't manipulate Adam"s will to be sure he sinned. As the WCF says:

"God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it"


God simply involved Himself in the circumstances around Adam in such a way that Adam would indeed do exactly what God always knew he would do under those circumstances.

Yes, like my dad simply involved himself in the circumstances around the horse (like salting the oats), in such a way that the horse would indeed do exactly what my dad knew the horse would do under those circumstances.

I just used your words to explain what my dad did to the horse to get it to drink, with the exception that I gave the precise details of how he was involved; and it fit perfectly. So how does it differ?

Since my position is steeped in Biblical truth - that is correct.

That is only your opinion ... please keep in mind, others, such as Catholics think the same thing.

No - I only observe that it appears that much of the the time you've spent has been severely tainted by your prejudice against many of the teachings of the Calvinists.

You might want to consider the idea that I have studied Reformed Theology for years, and find it unScriptural ... maybe, just maybe, that is my motive.

I disagree. All were decreed to do exactly what came to pass. But they chose to do so out of their own wills. It is just as the WCF so concisely points out.

Did you see anywhere in MY illustration that I wrote ANYTHING that said they were all decreed to go to the beach? No. I purposely didn't say that.

If everything in this world has already been decreed in the manner you say, we are nothing more than characters in a prewritten book; like Harry Potter, or Jack London's "Call of the Wild".

The things I'm pointing out are unassailable truths from the scriptures.

Then it should be pretty simple for you to show me the Scripture texts that show that God decreed Adam to sin in the Garden of Eden.

Since we both acknowledge that the WCF isn't Scripture, maybe we should just stick with Scripture?

For what it's worth - if you continue to argue for it's own sake - I'll be calling it a thread.

You refuge to acknowledge that when God involved Himself in the circumstances around Adam, that like my dad, God controlled what He knew would bring the result He wanted.

You have already admitted that my dad manipulated the will of the horse. Now if God involved Himself in Adam in the same manner (doing that which would cause Adam to choose to sin), how is that God NOT manipulating Adam's will?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So your proposition is that the cross was reactionary?

No, not in the slightest. My proposition is that God created the human race KNOWING that sin would occur. See, I don't subserve God's omniscience under His sovereignty.

In other words, there’s was a possibility that it wouldn’t be necessary?

Absolutely not. God never needs a "plan B", since He is omniscience and has always known "whatsoever comes to pass", all without ordering it, decreeing it, or having to make it happen.