Are we really just robots?

[moonbeam]

On putting on shoes, Lanning (sermonaudio.com, Jehovah's Absolute Sovereignty Over Man) seems to assert it, while you've opted for Sproul's solution as reflected in my Reformed Study Bible.

I am only asking my questions on this because of the logical conclusions we may take from these affirmations of God's absolute sovereignty. Listen closely to his sermon, and Lanning will describe our actions as illusion.

I took the time to listen, carefully, to the sermon you linked above by Andrew Lanning…I think you may have misrepresented his view somewhat…he certainly never gives any indication that he thinks our actions are "illusions"…I took the liberty of transcribing a portion of his message below concerning Proverbs chapter 16:1-4…taken from the 16:00min to 20:30min.



He is in charge, He is in control of everything, He has the authority and the right to do it this way because this pleases Him. God is in charge and we will submit to that. Sovereignty is His. This text at the beginning of Proverbs 16 calls attention especially to three ways that Gods sovereignty is revealed, three striking ways that sovereignty over all things is revealed. The first way is in verse one “The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD”.
The preparations of the heart in man refers to everything that goes on inside of us, to our thoughts and our plans, all of those things that we produce with our minds. And than the answer of the tongue refers to all of those things we say.
Now this is such a striking illustration of Gods sovereignty because it doesn’t feel like God is in control of what goes on inside me, if we didn’t have the word of God to tell us that God is in control of what goes on inside me, we might be tempted to think that we are in charge of our thoughts.
I think what I want to think. It doesn’t feel like there is some outside influence putting thoughts into my heart, and governing the thoughts of my heart. It feels like i’m in control of the thoughts of my heart. And when I get tired of thinking about one thing than I can change my thoughts to another thing. And the preparations of the heart in man appear to come from man.
And also the answer of the tongue, feels like it comes from me. When I think of something to say and then I actually speak that word, it feels like I did that. And yet the truth of the word of God is that all of those things that go on inside of us, all of our thoughts are from Jehovah. His sovereignty is so absolute that He is in charge of even those innermost thoughts and the feelings and the things that go on inside of us. Whenever it feels like now. God is sovereign over the thoughts of the heart of man, and the answer of the tongue.
The reason that I say what I do, is not because I am in charge of that, but that that comes from God. He’s sovereign, He’s Jehovah, over even these innermost things in man.

Than that sovereignty of God is emphasised in verse two, in God’s sovereignty and judgement “All of the ways of man are clean in his own eyes, but the LORD weigheth the spirits” Here again it feels like I should be the one who is best able to judge if my way is clean or not because I’m the one who knows my motivation. I’m the one who knows exactly why I did something. I’m the one who knows exactly what I did. And when others try to determine those things they don’t have as clear a picture as I do of my way. And therefore my way is clean in my own eyes as I judge that way. Thats the difficulty isn’t it always in the trials that go on in the courts of the land, trying to judge motives and trying to judge the reasons why someone did something because the sentence that comes down upon that person depends upon whether there was malicious motive, or whether there wasn’t. The penalty might be more severe for malicious motive and therefore it seems like the individual is in the best position to judge his own way. Sometimes we even talk to each other that way when someone does something for a right reason, but then is worried what other people are going to think because they can’t see the reason why I did it, and we have to remind each other that we can’t be worried about what other people think about those motives, if you feel that you did it for the right reason and according to the law of God than you may go that way. It feels like we should be the one’s to judge our own way because we’re in the best position, yet the truth of the word of God is that God is sovereign even over that judgement. God weighted the spirits, He weighs on His divine balance what the motives are. He weighs on His divine balance all of the motives that arise from that new man in us and the motives that arise from that old man of sin that pollutes everything. The Lord is sovereign even over judgement and the word of God is we are not in the best position to judge our own way. There is one who is in a better position because He knows the deepest innermost reasons. He weighs the spirits, He is absolutely sovereign even in judgement.
And then in verse four we read this about God’s sovereignty “The LORD hath made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil”.


.

 

[kj7gs]

I took the time to listen, carefully, to the sermon you linked above by Andrew Lanning…I think you may have misrepresented his view somewhat…he certainly never gives any indication that he thinks our actions are "illusions"…I took the liberty of transcribing a portion of his message below concerning Proverbs chapter 16:1-4…taken from the 16:00min to 20:30min.

Thank you for taking the time to listen/transcribe, Moonbeam. I take it you agree with Lanning. I have a difficult time, however, with his statement that "The reason that I say what I do, is not because I am in charge of that, but that that comes from God. He’s sovereign, He’s Jehovah, over even these innermost things in man."

Unfortunately this brings me right back to my OP. For the elect, if one thing seems to be another, and if God is really sovereign over decisions and what we say...then where do we find any relationship, any real friendship, with God?

Perhaps Clark was right, a "will within a will." We have a will, albeit a flawed, broken will. God's action that gives us righteousness before him, comes out of us because of perhaps a redirection where warranted. Every little thought, everything that comes off of the tongue? I don't know, perhaps Sproul and Clark are both right. A will of our own, for the elect our will is owned by God, BUT some of it doesn't need to be "forced," for lack of a better word, by God. This would give us a loving God who has numbered the hairs on our heads, our actions led by grace, not forced as if we were puppets.

For the reprobate though, I don't know -- maybe a will within a will of guiding them to their own destruction. But do the reprobate need God's action to make them pick up the weapon to wield against their fellow man, for example?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The way I see it, these are the options:

- A will within a will (Clark)
- Middle knowledge (Molinism)
- Active election with passive and sometimes active reprobation (kind of my own theory)
- No free will but free agency (Sproul)
- God exists outside of time (Lutheran I think)
- And "it's a mystery."

A will within a will makes God at the very least an accomplice.

Middle knowledge is a logical impossibility, God knowing and not knowing at the same time.

Active election that is too active, is control with a perceived relationship that is basically a lie.

No free will but free agency introduces a God who doesn't care about some things even if he knows about them.

God existing outside of time is the science-fiction God that asserts double predestination.

"It's a mystery" does not address the issue.

More thoughts on this? I'm leaning toward free will vs. free agency at the moment.

I agree with you on the "Will within a will" and on "middle knowledge".

I can agree with "No free will but free agency" and chalk the rest as "it's a mystery" within the hidden will of God, such God has revealed part of His will in Scripture, while not revealing everything.

Does the notion of God existing outside of time not appear in theological history until the Lutherans? Weird, from the time I was introduced to the notion, I agreed with it, I mean I do not believe God is restricted or bound by "time", not that "time" is a thing that we could taste, touch, hear, smell it with sense perception.

At some point we have to accept some mystery into our theology, because as the Apostle Paul say's we "see through a glass darkly". And for all the light the Holy Spirit brings into our lives, in our flesh we are darkness, and the natural inclination is to suppress truth.

 

[moonbeam]

I have a difficult time, however, with his statement that "The reason that I say what I do, is not because I am in charge of that, but that that comes from God. He’s sovereign, He’s Jehovah, over even these innermost things in man."

The difficulty you are having is not so much with Lanning’s comment...but with the logical implications of this proposition in scripture - “The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD”…[Proverbs 16:1]

The difficulty for you is found in accepting what is plainly said...believing what is said...the issue is one of belief; concerning the statements found in the word of God.

But the emotive resonance of our personalities...combined with the cognitive difficulties arising from the implications...assaults our minds to such a degree...that it often ensures that the truth in regards this matter is not easily absorbed.

Unfortunately this brings me right back to my OP. For the elect, if one thing seems to be another, and if God is really sovereign over decisions and what we say...then where do we find any relationship, any real friendship, with God?

Isn’t one aspect of a relational dynamic dealing with the thoughts and expressions of an entity [personality] other than ourselves?

That fundamental dynamic ensures points of contention...as well as points of agreement...and the mutual exchange of thought and consideration whereby matters are engaged, contended for or against, and resolved or not.

You could say that that is the very flux whereby I know that a relationship exists...and is real...not an illusion.

Isn’t this also the basis for our friendship?

Perhaps Clark was right, a "will within a will." We have a will, albeit a flawed, broken will. God's action that gives us righteousness before him, comes out of us because of perhaps a redirection where warranted. Every little thought, everything that comes off of the tongue? I don't know, perhaps Sproul and Clark are both right. A will of our own, for the elect our will is owned by God, BUT some of it doesn't need to be "forced," for lack of a better word, by God. This would give us a loving God who has numbered the hairs on our heads, our actions led by grace, not forced as if we were puppets.

For the reprobate though, I don't know -- maybe a will within a will of guiding them to their own destruction. But do the reprobate need God's action to make them pick up the weapon to wield against their fellow man, for example?

The scriptural evidence for a “will within a will” is overwhelming and logically irrefutable.

Yet your complaint [against God] that this is necessarily restrictive concerning the absolute liberty you ought to have is proven false by your own subjective experience........Is that not so ?

You can exercise your free will to your hearts content...and you do...don’t you ?

Therefore there really is no problem at all accepting that your will...is necessarily and logically subsumed within Gods sovereign will.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being ... [Acts 17:28]

.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So, Mr. Moonbeam, try fitting your "will within a will" Spinozian philosophy into the following:

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."

Surely we both can agree on the necessary application of the law of non-contradiction to interpretation of Scripture, for proper exegesis.

Assuming the "will within the will" theory, God is divided against Himself, and contradiction abounds, for God cannot actively will A and non-A at the same time in the same sense, because God cannot contradict His nature nor can His will be mutable, whereas creatures, especially humans bearing the image of God, do have mutable wills. Hence, the necessity, even logically so, for the Creator - creation distinction, the immutable and mutable will distinction.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Another Scripture for the "will within a will" advocates:

Heb 6:17 "Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the 6 immutability of His counsel, 7 confirmed it by an oath, 18 that by two 8 immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie."

Forgive the simplicity of this, but according to Scripture "it is impossible for God to lie", therefore you can be sure that this excludes God from any direct chains of causality which entail causing a lie. This little argument based on Scripture, unravels and exposes the "will within a will" combined with hard determinism for what it is, philosophical bunk.

 

[moonbeam]

So, Mr. Moonbeam, try fitting your "will within a will" Spinozian philosophy into the following:

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."

Surely we both can agree on the necessary application of the law of non-contradiction to interpretation of Scripture, for proper exegesis.

Assuming the "will within the will" theory, God is divided against Himself, and contradiction abounds, for God cannot actively will A and non-A at the same time in the same sense, because God cannot contradict His nature nor can His will be mutable, whereas creatures, especially humans bearing the image of God, do have mutable wills. Hence, the necessity, even logically so, for the Creator - creation distinction, the immutable and mutable will distinction.

That the will of man is subsumed within, and therefore, necessarily by, the will of God...is succinctly stated in scripture and therefore is not a theory...its a scriptural fact aka the truth

For in him we live, and move, and have our being ... [Acts 17:28]

This statement is extremely compact and precise yet vast in the scope of its implications...ponder upon the depth and significance of the necessary logical inferences of this proposition.


It was the immutable will of God, that determined, that man have a mutable will....There is no contradiction.

The scripture you quote shows the logical outworking of the transcendent will of God superimposed over the will of man...”in order to bring it about”...His foreordained purpose that is.

.

 

[moonbeam]

Another Scripture for the "will within a will" advocates:

Heb 6:17 "Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie."

Forgive the simplicity of this, but according to Scripture "it is impossible for God to lie", therefore you can be sure that this excludes God from any direct chains of causality which entail causing a lie. This little argument based on Scripture, unravels and exposes the "will within a will" combined with hard determinism for what it is, philosophical bunk.

It is impossible for God to lie personally … [note the distinction] ... which is why we can believe what He states in scripture.

That God utilizes lies...and decrees their use Himself...is testified to in scripture.

And is an example of His personal will [superimposed] over all other wills…to bring about His foreordained purpose.

That is the purpose and intent of these scriptures…to exhibit the absolute transcendence, of the exercise of His sovereignty, over all things.

And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so…[1 Kings 22:19-22]

.

 

[kj7gs]

Does the notion of God existing outside of time not appear in theological history until the Lutherans? Weird, from the time I was introduced to the notion, I agreed with it, I mean I do not believe God is restricted or bound by "time", not that "time" is a thing that we could taste, touch, hear, smell it with sense perception.

At some point we have to accept some mystery into our theology, because as the Apostle Paul say's we "see through a glass darkly". And for all the light the Holy Spirit brings into our lives, in our flesh we are darkness, and the natural inclination is to suppress truth.

A.W., I don't know if earlier theologians posited the idea of an "outside of time" God or not. If it was a given for you, it was an anomaly to me. It's what sci-fi shows are made of, God the Time Traveler, theology that logically says God has no need for election because He saw what you would do of your own free will! This approach would have to be Pelagian, because God wouldn't have the love necessary to be Arminian...unless that too was a lie. "I love you--well, not really, no need to sell here, I'm just saying that because you needed to hear it." My apologies for the sarcasm, but this is why the outside-of-time God to me would be outside of Calvinist belief.

On mystery...I have accepted some mystery within the Christian faith. There are some things that I will assert but cannot explain, yet they are not serious enough to capitulate to those who disagree with our theology. But sovereignty issues like this are uniquely Calvinistic, and worthy of discussion until we have no choice but to yield ourselves to the mockery of our opponents. I'm not yet ready for that.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

A.W., I don't know if earlier theologians posited the idea of an "outside of time" God or not. If it was a given for you, it was an anomaly to me. It's what sci-fi shows are made of, God the Time Traveler, theology that logically says God has no need for election because He saw what you would do of your own free will! This approach would have to be Pelagian, because God wouldn't have the love necessary to be Arminian...unless that too was a lie. "I love you--well, not really, no need to sell here, I'm just saying that because you needed to hear it." My apologies for the sarcasm, but this is why the outside-of-time God to me would be outside of Calvinist belief.

Honestly do not see how it necessarily entails the baggage of God as a "time traveler". Certainly do not buy into the notion of God needing to look down the corridors of time, or choosing to, etc. Scripture tells us what election is based on..

Romans 9:16 "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy"

The "it" refers to election in the context. And again...

Romans 9:18 "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

So election is of God [salvation belongs to God], his choice, his prerogative as to whom He loves and has mercy on, Jacob and Esau being the examples Paul gives.

Now, on time, the Scriptures do not speak to great lengths about time, and I do not think it is wise to construct a theology around time as some have done (Molinists for example).

On mystery...I have accepted some mystery within the Christian faith. There are some things that I will assert but cannot explain, yet they are not serious enough to capitulate to those who disagree with our theology. But sovereignty issues like this are uniquely Calvinistic, and worthy of discussion until we have no choice but to yield ourselves to the mockery of our opponents. I'm not yet ready for that.

This following Scriptures come to mind:

1 Cor 1:20 "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the 8 disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a 9 stumbling block and to the 10 Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

I am content with the foolishness of God. Haters are gonna hate regardless.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It is impossible for God to lie personally … [note the distinction] ... which is why we can believe what He states in scripture.

That God utilizes lies...and decrees their use Himself...is testified to in scripture.

And is an example of His personal will [superimposed] over all other wills…to bring about His foreordained purpose.

That is the purpose and intent of these scriptures…to exhibit the absolute transcendence, of the exercise of His sovereignty, over all things.

And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so…[1 Kings 22:19-22]

.

Bro you slippin' into compatiblism with me. The distinction you make (per Scripture I quoted), calls for a distinction in cause, this is first (or direct from God) and secondary (indirect, that is not God personally) causes. While secondary causes are all beneath the sovereignty of God, there is, under nominal circumstances no necessity for coercion or force.

 

[moonbeam]

Bro you slippin' into compatiblism with me.

If the compatibilist can accept exhaustive determinism with the exercise of free will a component contingent on that which is determined...than yes I will be able to agree with that particular description of scriptural compatibilism.

Question - Are you able to accept this scriptural definition of compatibilism? - If not…Why not?

The distinction you make (per Scripture I quoted), calls for a distinction in cause, this is first (or direct from God) and secondary (indirect, that is not God personally) causes. While secondary causes are all beneath the sovereignty of God, there is, under nominal circumstances no necessity for coercion or force.

All secondary causes…are caused [decreed]…by the First cause [God]

That is why they are called secondary…and not first causes.

It is impossible for God to lie personally…Yet He decrees the use of lies Himself, personally [1 Kings 22:19-21]

Question - Would you agree with this statement?

.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If the compatibilist can accept exhaustive determinism with the exercise of free will a component contingent on that which is determined...than yes I will be able to agree with that particular description of scriptural compatibilism.

Question - Are you able to accept this scriptural definition of compatibilism? - If not…Why not?

I accept 100% of Scripture, I hold the old and unpopular view of Scriptural inerrancy. Scripture should inform our definitions, and not the other way around.

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."

Of course I "accept" this Scripture which tells us God works all things according to His will. However this does not tell us precisely HOW He works ALL things, now does it?

Something else, I do not believe in "free will" in the sense the Palagian or semi-Palagian does, nor the run of the mill Arminian. In fact, I really dislike the term because it is a misleading one in it's very name. I much prefer the term "freedom", even this requires cavets, because it is quite limited, and never outside the decrees of God. I much prefer to think of the will as either a slave to Christ, or slave to sin. And this would be more in sync with the type of language used in Scripture.

All secondary causes…are caused [decreed]…by the First cause [God]

That is why they are called secondary…and not first causes.

It is impossible for God to lie personally…Yet He decrees the use of lies Himself, personally [1 Kings 22:19-21]

Question - Would you agree with this statement?

.

See here you go again, if all secondary causes are cause by the first cause, then you contradict Scripture making it possible for God to do anything and everything, including lie, among other things that contradict His attributes.

Now if you say all secondary causes are decreed by the first cause (God), as in worked according to the council of His will, then YES I can and do agree. So now it comes down to how how a "decree" is defined.

 

[moonbeam]

Of course I "accept" this Scripture which tells us God works all things according to His will. However this does not tell us precisely HOW He works ALL things, now does it?

Do you "accept"…[as in believe]...this scripture below?

“The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD”…[Proverbs 16:1]

Therefore [presuming you believe the word of God]…This DOES tell us precisely HOW He works ALL things…Now doesn't it?

Something else, I do not believe in "free will" in the sense the Palagian or semi-Palagian does, nor the run of the mill Arminian. In fact, I really dislike the term because it is a misleading one in it's very name. I much prefer the term "freedom", even this requires cavets, because it is quite limited, and never outside the decrees of God. I much prefer to think of the will as either a slave to Christ, or slave to sin. And this would be more in sync with the type of language used in Scripture.

In regards to the bolded section of your comment above.

If the compatibilist can accept exhaustive determinism with the exercise of free will a component contingent on that which is determined...than yes I will be able to agree with that particular description of scriptural compatibilism.

Question - Are you able to accept this scriptural definition of compatibilism...Yes or No?

And if not…why not?

See here you go again, if all secondary causes are cause by the first cause, then you contradict Scripture making it possible for God to do anything and everything, including lie, among other things that contradict His attributes.

Answer the question below please.

It is impossible for God to lie personally…Yet He decrees the use of lies Himself, personally [1 Kings 22:19-21]

Question - Would you agree with this statement?

Now if you say all secondary causes are decreed by the first cause (God), as in worked according to the council of His will, then YES I can and do agree. So now it comes down to how how a "decree" is defined.

How about using this scripture to define what exactly a decree is.

"being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will"…[Ephesians 1:11]

Would you accept this phrase as a reasonable summation in regards to a definition for decree?
.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Do you "accept"…[as in believe]...this scripture below?

“The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD”…[Proverbs 16:1]

Of course I "accept" that Scripture...

Therefore [presuming you believe the word of God]…This DOES tell us precisely HOW He works ALL things…Now doesn't it?

No, I do not agree with your interpretation, 1.) by your interpretation, the lying tongue is from the Lord, which is blasphemous. The lying tongue has at its root the evil one. 2.) Pr 16:1 does not explain how God works "all things" nor is it intended to.

I could entertain the notion of Pr. 16:1 as written for God's people, the elect, and applied to the same, however God did create man, including all that is necessary to think and speak, and none can think or speak outside of the sovereignty, the governance of God over all of creation.

Let's try a couple of commentaries...

"As we read this, it teaches us a great truth, that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think or speak any thing of ourselves that is wise and good, but that all our sufficiency is of God, who is with the heart and with the mouth, and works in us both to will and to do,Phil 2:13; Ps 10:17. But most read it otherwise: The preparation of the heart is in man (he may contrive and design this and the other) but the answer of the tongue, not only the delivering of what he designed to speak, but the issue and success of what he designed to do, is of the Lord. That is, in short, 1. Man purposes. He has a freedom of thought and a freedom of will permitted him; let him form his projects, and lay his schemes, as he thinks best: but, after all, 2. God disposes. Man cannot go on with his business without the assistance and blessing of God, who made man's mouth and teaches us what we shall say. Nay, God easily can, and often does, cross men's purposes, and break their measures. It was a curse that was prepared in Balaam's heart, but the answer of the tongue was a blessing." - Matthew Henry

"Men can neither think nor speak wisely and well of themselves, or without Divine assistance. Or, as many others, both ancient and modern interpreters, render the verse,

The preparations, or dispositions, or orderings of the heart are in or from a man; (i.e. a man may consider and contrive in his own thoughts what he wills or designs to speak; which is spoken by way of concession, yet not excluding man’s dependence upon God therein, which is evident both from many plain texts of Scripture, and from undeniable reason; but the answer or speech (as this word is oft used) of the tongue is from the Lord. Men cannot express their own thoughts without God’s leave and help, and their tongues are oft overruled by God to speak what was besides and above their own thoughts, as he did Balaam, Num 23, and Caiaphas, Joh 11:49-51." - Matthew Poole

Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Finally, Pr 16:1 and 16:9, both support the concept of compatiblism.

If the compatibilist can accept exhaustive determinism with the exercise of free will a component contingent on that which is determined...than yes I will be able to agree with that particular description of scriptural compatibilism.

Question - Are you able to accept this scriptural definition of compatibilism...Yes or No?

And if not…why not?

Bro, in case you did not know, your question is loaded. Trying to fit hard determinism into soft determinism, simply does not work. I do not expect we will come to complete agreement, even though I do believe in exhaustive predestination, though I believe not one particle of matter is outside the governing of God, of the sovereignty of God. For what it's worth, I even believe in double predestination.

I do not equate predestination with determinism, and it is erroneous to do so.

"The word predestinate properly signifies to destine (i.e. to set apart, or devote to a particular use, condition, or end) beforehand. It therefore denotes a mere act of the will, and should be carefully distinguished from that exercise of power by which volitions are actualized or carried into effect. Etymologically it would be proper to say that God before the foundation of the world predestinated the sun to be luminous, the loadstone to attract, the atmosphere to perform its varied ministries. In theological language, however, God would be said to have “foreordained” or “decreed” these things, the term “predestinate” being restricted to God's supposed determinations respecting the destinies of men in the future world." - Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological Literature Strong McClintock

It is impossible for God to lie personally…Yet He decrees the use of lies Himself, personally [1 Kings 22:19-21]

Question - Would you agree with this statement?

Yes, I can agree with it.

1 Ki 22:21 “Then a spirit came forward..."

And God soverignly ALLOWED the Spirit asking permission, and God passively ALLOWED the Spirit to do that work which was in the bigger plan and will of God. In this the lying Spirit is responsible, and as the initiator both the direct and indirect cause of the lies. The Lord actively commanded the Spirit in saying "Go out and do so" but this does not entail a cause, it entails the approval of allowing, a nod, agreement.

How about using this scripture to define what exactly a decree is.

"being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will"…[Ephesians 1:11]

Would you accept this phrase as a reasonable summation in regards to a definition for decree?
.

A decree is an authoritative order or decision. I accept Strong's definitions...

H2706
חֹק
chôq
khoke
From H2710; an enactment; hence an appointment (of time, space, quantity, labor or usage):—appointed, bound, commandment, convenient, custom, decree (-d), due, law, measure, X necessary, ordinance (-nary), portion, set time, statute, task

H2940
טַעַם
tòa‛am
tah'-am
From H2938; properly a taste, that is, (figuratively) perception; by implication intelligence; transitively a mandate:—advice, behaviour, decree, discretion, judgment, reason, taste, understanding.

 

[AMR]

On the Decree of God, see also:

http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u244978-e11255/
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u244978-e78925/

 

[moonbeam]

Of course I "accept" that Scripture...

No, I do not agree with your interpretation, 1.) by your interpretation, the lying tongue is from the Lord, which is blasphemous. The lying tongue has at its root the evil one. 2.) Pr 16:1 does not explain how God works "all things" nor is it intended to.

I could entertain the notion of Pr. 16:1 as written for God's people, the elect, and applied to the same, however God did create man, including all that is necessary to think and speak, and none can think or speak outside of the sovereignty, the governance of God over all of creation.

Let's try a couple of commentaries...

"As we read this, it teaches us a great truth, that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think or speak any thing of ourselves that is wise and good, but that all our sufficiency is of God, who is with the heart and with the mouth, and works in us both to will and to do,Phil 2:13; Ps 10:17. But most read it otherwise: The preparation of the heart is in man (he may contrive and design this and the other) but the answer of the tongue, not only the delivering of what he designed to speak, but the issue and success of what he designed to do, is of the Lord. That is, in short, 1. Man purposes. He has a freedom of thought and a freedom of will permitted him; let him form his projects, and lay his schemes, as he thinks best: but, after all, 2. God disposes. Man cannot go on with his business without the assistance and blessing of God, who made man's mouth and teaches us what we shall say. Nay, God easily can, and often does, cross men's purposes, and break their measures. It was a curse that was prepared in Balaam's heart, but the answer of the tongue was a blessing." - Matthew Henry

"Men can neither think nor speak wisely and well of themselves, or without Divine assistance. Or, as many others, both ancient and modern interpreters, render the verse,

The preparations, or dispositions, or orderings of the heart are in or from a man; (i.e. a man may consider and contrive in his own thoughts what he wills or designs to speak; which is spoken by way of concession, yet not excluding man’s dependence upon God therein, which is evident both from many plain texts of Scripture, and from undeniable reason; but the answer or speech (as this word is oft used) of the tongue is from the Lord. Men cannot express their own thoughts without God’s leave and help, and their tongues are oft overruled by God to speak what was besides and above their own thoughts, as he did Balaam, Num 23, and Caiaphas, Joh 11:49-51." - Matthew Poole

Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Finally, Pr 16:1 and 16:9, both support the concept of compatiblism.

My response got a bit expansive so I decided to post it in the Semper Reformada - Reformed front page as a stand alone thread.

.

 

[Reformed]

I don't understand why people make it so difficult and confusing. The Apostle Paul made it very clear: if you are not a "robot" of God, you are a robot of Satan. You are not free by any means! Whether you think this is fair or not, is irrelevant. It is the way the Bible describes us. I am glad we are "robots" of someone who loved us to the point of giving his own life as a ransom for us.

All these "moderate" Calvinists, or more accurately pseudo-Calvinists, that talk about a "permissive" will of God, and a "permissive" hardening of Pharaoh's heart, have not read the same Bible I read. They sound more like infiltrates from the Arminian camp trying to sow doubt among the faithful, and they go to seminaries and publish books to prove their point and try to get more converts to their cause.

Do not deceive yourselves: there is no such thing as a "moderate" Calvinist. You are either a full-fledged Calvinist or you are not a Calvinist at all.

 

[twin1954]

I don't understand why people make it so difficult and confusing. The Apostle Paul made it very clear: if you are not a "robot" of God, you are a robot of Satan. You are not free by any means! Whether you think this is fair or not, is irrelevant. It is the way the Bible describes us. I am glad we are "robots" of someone who loved us to the point of giving his own life as a ransom for us.

All these "moderate" Calvinists, or more accurately pseudo-Calvinists, that talk about a "permissive" will of God, and a "permissive" hardening of Pharaoh's heart, have not read the same Bible I read. They sound more like infiltrates from the Arminian camp trying to sow doubt among the faithful, and they go to seminaries and publish books to prove their point and try to get more converts to their cause.

Do not deceive yourselves: there is no such thing as a "moderate" Calvinist. You are either a full-fledged Calvinist or you are not a Calvinist at all.

You need to define what you mean by Calvinist. Are you talking about being a full fledged follower of Calvin or just the doctrines of grace? If you are a Baptist can you be a Calvinist? See why I am asking? Calvinist has become a very broad umbrella that covers quite a bit of theological views.

Or are you just talking about being an ultra high Calvinist?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't understand why people make it so difficult and confusing. The Apostle Paul made it very clear: if you are not a "robot" of God, you are a robot of Satan. You are not free by any means! Whether you think this is fair or not, is irrelevant. It is the way the Bible describes us. I am glad we are "robots" of someone who loved us to the point of giving his own life as a ransom for us.

Exchange the word "robot" for "slave" and I have no problem with it. But the robot trope is insulting, robots are not human, have no will, no emotions, etc. It is difficult to perceive a Calvinist giving into the insults to accept the robot trope and claim it as their own. At best, the robot trope is a "bad analogy", but it is used to insult, and mock.

All these "moderate" Calvinists, or more accurately pseudo-Calvinists, that talk about a "permissive" will of God, and a "permissive" hardening of Pharaoh's heart, have not read the same Bible I read.

So that is the defining characteristic of whether one is a Calvinist or not eh? It all boils down to whether one embraces an all active will of God. No sir, that is not a key distinctive of Calvinism. I would be willing to bet, that there is a long theological history of Calvinists who embraced a permissive aspect in the will of God.

Job 1:6-12 must be ripped out of your Bible, along with many other passages of Scripture like Genesis 50:20, Luke 8:32. Which Bible do you read?

They sound more like infiltrates from the Arminian camp trying to sow doubt among the faithful, and they go to seminaries and publish books to prove their point and try to get more converts to their cause.

Charitable Calvinists accept differences between other Calvinists, and have love for all brothers and sisters in Christ, even those Christians outside of the Calvinist "camp".

Do not deceive yourselves: there is no such thing as a "moderate" Calvinist. You are either a full-fledged Calvinist or you are not a Calvinist at all.

There is no such thing as a "4 point Calvinist", one is either a "5 pointer" or not a Calvinist. I am not a fan of the "moderate" label, folks like Norman Geisler have claimed to be moderate Calvinists, but he is no such thing, no matter the sympathies he may have for the Reformed faith. What exactly makes a Calvinist "moderate" anyway?