Do calvinists believe that God wills them to sin?

[Mountainmike]

Simple question

You are giving an interpretation of what is actually complicated philosophy. So not simple.

Similar to the thomist vs molinist understanding of predestination.....is it because God knows all, and exists in all time, for who the past, future and present are all present. So despite the fact you have free choice he knows what you will do with it....or is it because buried in your makeup is the choices you will make, s o the occasion to sin, and sining are inbuilt from the first, or is it because he will give the graces to some not others, so that by grace some are saved, but by lack of grace (a choice God has) others then sin are not saved?

I say Calvin let his intellectual side get the better of him. He got it completely wrong. He tried to understand God, regard God as an automaton, whose decisions are therefore programmed, so therefored decides the outcome predetermined, so if you are predestined to hell, then somewhere along the way you must have sinned, and since you had no choice , God must have made you sin. Which all demeans God in my view. Calvinists I have spoken to only believe in one way predestination! up not down, for his elect.

I prefer what I see in the bible, a God who loves and wishes all to be saved, who would rather you loved him and rather you did not Sin, but gave you the freedom in both.

 

[sunlover1]

You are giving an interpretation of what is actually complicated philosophy. So not simple.

Similar to the thomist vs molinist understanding of predestination.....is it because God knows all, and exists in all time, for who the past, future and present are all present. So despite the fact you have free choice he knows what you will do with it....or is it because buried in your makeup is the choices you will make, s o the occasion to sin, and sining are inbuilt from the first, or is it because he will give the graces to some not others, so that by grace some are saved, but by lack of grace (a choice God has) others then sin are not saved?

We really only need to know if God is puppet master or no.
Is this important?
It is in that many people don't bother to pray for so many things
and are actually out of His will.
Ask a Calvinist if you want them to pray for the injured arm
for instance. I did this one time and was told, with an actual
scoffing tone, "God doesn't do that anymore, sunlover!"

Was sharing that with a friend last week, who said his parents
had the exact attitude, due to that calvinist doctrine.

I say Calvin let his intellectual side get the better of him. He got it completely wrong. He tried to understand God, regard God as an automaton, whose decisions are therefore programmed, so therefored decides the outcome predetermined, so if you are predestined to hell, then somewhere along the way you must have sinned, and since you had no choice , God must have made you sin. Which all demeans God in my view. Calvinists I have spoken to only believe in one way predestination! up not down, for his elect.

I prefer what I see in the bible, a God who loves and wishes all to be saved, who would rather you loved him and rather you did not Sin, but gave you the freedom in both.

Your writing style has a sweet flow to it.
IJS
And thank you for your two cents too!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Etc. Ordination carries with it the connotation of legal consent and will.

Exactly. It does not carry with it the connotation of puppetry or robotics.

I have frequently seen this quoted in full by Calvinists, but never explained. This is not scripture; it is basically a statement that "We hold a view that states God ordains sin, but we hereby declare that we also hold the (seemingly) contradictory belief that God is not the author of sin."

Exactly. That is with the red addition I have added for emphasis.

There are many things in the Bible which seem to contradict. Calvinists at least have the fortitude to admit it and formulate their doctrine to include both sides of the seemingly contradictory equation. Many other choose leave half of the doctrine out and scoff at those who will not.

The Westminster confession is not an explanation at all. It would be like someone saying, "We believe that God commanded, tempted, and ensured that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit, but not in any way that caused God to be responsible for Adam's sin or removed Adam's agency."

Leave out the words "commanded and tempted" (which no Reformed theologian would ever say - and you've hit the nail on the head - that is a brief statement of both sides of the equation and thus the scriptural position.

That's not a reason why A doesn't mean B, rather it is declaring that one holds both A and not A to be true at the same time.

Exactly - now your presenting accurately the Reformed position and the purpose of the Westminster Confession statement which summarizes the doctrine.

That I agree with - but God doesn't have to govern by micromanagement nor must he determine every action man takes to ensure that His redemptive plan happens.

Exactly so - as the Westminster and any good Reformed theologian would tell you. God - the first cause - uses second causes (in this case the God given free will of men) to bring to past what He has predestined to come to past.

Predestination in no way eliminates the choices of men - rather those choices (among an almost infinite number of other factors) establish what God has predestined.

For instance - God predestined that Christ would die on a cross and the choices of evil men brought it to past. God predestined that Joseph would rise to power in Egypt and the choices of evil men brought it to past.

Therefore "God did it" in both cases.

If saying that seems contradictory to you - you should learn to live with it. Calvinists have and so have I - as well as the writers of the scriptures.

Basically, God is omnipresent, the omnipotent creator, and that He is omniscient as well. Few Christians would disagree with that, and that is hardly something that Calvinists alone believe.

But it seems that they are among the few who have stated for all to see the logical conclusion of those attributes.

Subscribing to God's omniscience alone, for instance, logically demands that one also believes that everything which happens in God's creation was predestined to happen from before the foundation of this creation. There was absolutely no "chance" that what God knew would happen if He acted in certain innumerable ways would not indeed happen. He chose to so act and in so doing He predestined everything which happens as a result. He was not bound to act in those certain ways. He chose to do so out of His own wise will and in so doing He (and He alone) became the one who (as He says) has predestined.

Pelagian, anti-scripture, etc. Ad-hominems are not a good way to convince me a view is true.

Neither is talk of puppet masters and robotics productive. They misrepresent the position of Calvinist. Only accurate statements of what the majority of Calvinists believe are productive (such as my quote from the W. C. F.) - whether anti-Calvinists think them contradictory or not.

You not personally believing a common theory among Calvinists doesn't mean that no Calvinist teaches a thing or that it isn't a consistent corralory view along with TULIP. It would be impossible to debate what everyone's personal variant beliefs are on Calvinism or any other issue, so one can only discuss the common views of T.U.L.I.P. and closely held common implications that many prominent Calvinists believe and publically teach (like regeneration preceding faith, determinism, God ordaining sin, etc.)

This is now a discussion of the 5 points??

Discussing a common belief is not a straw-man, although you certainly are free to clarify that you reject such a teaching even when Calvinists hold to it. A strawman is not discussing a view actual people (but not you) hold, rather it is building a fake argument that is based on your interpretation of a view. 'Calvinists don't encourage evangelism' or 'Arminians believe that their own righteousness has a part in their salvation' are common straw-men on this topic.

It is not a straw man unless it is misrepresented or (as you have chosen to do) brought into a conversation about something else in order to undermine the position of one side on that particular subject.

For instance - bringing up "limited atonement" is not a fair way of discussing whether God wills us to sin.

Have my posts been "emotion filled" or have they dealt with scripture?

Only in so far as they bring you own feeling into the conversation. Your feeling that the statement from the W.C.F. cannot be an accurate presentation of a Bible doctrine because it "seems" contradictory to you is a prime example.

I might "feel" that a good and loving God putting His child in a garden wherein an extremely talented talking serpent could tempt Him to eat of a tree God had placed there which would kill him and then cursing the man for falling into the trap is "contradictory". But I do not have the right to refuse to present it just as the scriptures present it in a class I'm teaching just because I don't like the doctrine or fully understand how it could be true.

Calvinists have attempted to present difficult doctrines in a way which includes what may seem contradictory to us from our earthly perspective. And for that they are told that they believe in a God who causes men to sin and is therefore the author of sin.

And this in spite of them going out of their way to deny that they are so teaching.

I have yet to see any scripture that supports Calvinism to the exclusion of other views.

In this thread that's likely because the charge against them is that they teach that God wills (as in causes) men to sin.

If you're talking about a point fromT.U.L.P. or some such topic all I can say is "there you go again".

I find that scripture easily dismantles many claims of Calvinism, and I have yet to find scripture verses or passages that demand Calvinism as the only (or even the best) explanation when context, limits of the word use (vs. philosophy pulled from an over-extrapolated interpretation,) and the underlying Greek are examined.

We're talking in this thread about whether God wills men to sin.

If you want a conversation on, say, "limited atonement" we could start one elsewhere I suppose. Of course IMO you and I would be on the same page on that one as well as a few other ways which so called "Calvinists" have presented things.

I've been researching this topic for years.

Then why haven't you come to an understanding that God's omniscience logically demands that He predestines all things which happen in His creation? Why have you not, after so understanding, seen that predestination in no way eliminates free will or the accountability which goes with our choices?

These posts are too long. This is the last one I will answer in detail like this.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin said, "While the sovereign will of God is a difficult discussion - attempts to deny His absolute sovereign predestination of everything which happens in His creation is an attempt to diminish Him and it does not please Him for anyone to do so."

I think this right here is where the confusion comes in.

The idea that God's predestining all things which happen must eliminate the free will choices of men is the problem I see in all these discussions.

God no more had to eliminate or override the choices of the men who crucified Christ to bring to past what He predestined to happen then He would have to do away with the laws of geology to bring to past an earthquake He predestines to occur in the Tribulation period.

Short and sweet comment - I know. But I'm getting rather worn out here, what with Jennifer's long posts and such.

 

[sunlover1]

Marvin said, "While the sovereign will of God is a difficult discussion - attempts to deny His absolute sovereign predestination of everything which happens in His creation is an attempt to diminish Him and it does not please Him for anyone to do so."

I disagree due to some things I've read in the Bible but right now I"m pinched for time.

The idea that God's predestining all things which happen must eliminate the free will choices of men is the problem I see in all these discussions.

I don't deny it was His will for Jesus to die.

What then do we do about the little boy who was raped by the perv?
Why/what happened there?

Short and sweet comment - I know. But I'm getting rather worn out here, what with Jennifer's long posts and such.

I'm out of the loop but short and sweet is often just as, or more, inspiring.

 

[sunlover1]

Exactly. It does not carry with it the connotation of puppetry or robotics.

Exactly. That is with the red addition I have added for emphasis.

There are many things in the Bible which seem to contradict. Calvinists at least have the fortitude to admit it and formulate their doctrine to include both sides of the seemingly contradictory equation. Many other choose leave half of the doctrine out and scoff at those who will not.

Woah! Now i see what you meant lol.
I don't understand how you "formulate the doctrine to include both sides of the seemingly contradictory equation".
Please, when you have time, explain how God can ordain sin, yet forbid sin.
How God can "not tempt any man to sin" yet, preordain someone to sin"
thank you!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Woah! Now i see what you meant lol.
I don't understand how you "formulate the doctrine to include both sides of the seemingly contradictory equation".
Please, when you have time, explain how God can ordain sin, yet forbid sin.
How God can "not tempt any man to sin" yet, preordain someone to sin"
thank you!

Here is an example of a formulation of a doctrine which includes both sides of a seemingly contradictory equation. I have used it before. But I reproduce it again here because it is so concise, so honest, so representative of what Calvinists teach, and it clearly refutes what many wrongly say that Calvinists teach.

I believe it tackles your concerns on several fronts.

The authoritative Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith says.
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise 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.”

“God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. …… Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. …………. . God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.”

The decrees of God involve all things, and extends to every event, "...according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." Eph 1:11

Even seemingly random of events are ordered by the decree of God. "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." Proverbs 16:33

Even the so called free acts of rational beings are decreed by God. "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." Acts 2:23

I take it that you have no trouble finding free will in the scriptures so I won’t provide examples.

So here we have a dilemma. God is good and yet He decrees acts by men which are bad. His decree that an act happen (or as most would have it allowed to happen) seems to contradict what we all agree with concerning His nature of goodness and inability to sin.

Rather than do as many people here tend to do and deny or leave out half of the dilemma - the Reformed theologian states both halves in a concise way.

Some say that those halves are contradictory and simply refuse to believe what God says about the matter. Jennifer is an example of such.

But that’s bad theology even if it is done by good people.

The simplest explanation of how the altogether good God can do (or decree) something evil is first acknowledge that God only does good. (That’s precisely what Reformed theologians have done in the case of the Westminster statement. I.e. - what men and demons mean for evil God means for good. Examples are such as the crucifixion of Jesus and the selling of Joseph to the Egyptians. In those examples – God is not doing evil but good even though He is doing it through the evil actions of men.

I won’t tackle your example of the molested boy simply because I can’t possibly see at this time what could be in the end “good” about it.

A similar question was posed to Jesus concerning certain calamities which had come upon His countrymen (the fall of the tower of Siloam and the resultant deaths etc.).

If I can boldly paraphrase what I believe Jesus' attitude was about being asked those questions by His disciples, I will say, “Why do you ask what is not given to you? Don’t you have enough examples in the scriptures to formulate a doctrine which says that bad things happen and yet God will ultimately show that they are good from His perspective?”

A good theology should simply teach what the scriptures teach and let seeming contradictions lay there. What it should not do is what is done here all the time.

Here’s another crude bold paraphrase that may shed light on what is being done by many here in the forum and why it’s dangerous – and I’ll leave it at that for this post.

God, “Don’t eat from that tree. It will kill you.”

Serpent, “Oh really, hath God really said?”

Eve to Adam, “Everyone knows God is good and that He loves us. Surely He wouldn’t place us in a garden with a tree that would kill us and a tempter who would convince us to eat of it. That makes no sense. Our God wouldn’t do that. That would be evil of Him. That would make Him the author of sin since He knows full well that we will give in to the serpent. Surely the Serpent is right. Surely God said something other than what it seemed He said. I’m not going to go with what I though I clearly heard Him say – I’m going to believe and say that surely God wouldn’t say and do something which we can clearly see violates His very nature. That would be contradictory of Him and He cannot deny Himself.”

He must not have said what it appeared He said from simple listening.

Adam, “You’re right. I’m not going to believe that kind of doctrine. That’s like something Calvinists would teach.”

Chomp- chomp and the rest, as they say, is history.

There is a reason why God has chosen to make some theology areas difficult and not clear to our senses. This is a bit of a test for the church as I see it.

“For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” 1 Corinthians 11:19

“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” James 3:1

I’m going to sign off for a while. I’m getting a bit burned out.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Calvinists don't believe in free will. They believe that God created some destined for hell and some destined for heaven. So, yes, ultimately.

But they're wrong according to the Bible.

What Calvinist Authors teaches that God wills people to sin?

Quote their works and provide a link to each so that the quote may be checked.

Ezekiel 18:32 Good News Translation (GNT)
32 I do not want anyone to die,” says the Sovereign Lord. “Turn away from your sins and live.”

 

[LoveofTruth]

What Calvinist Authors teaches that God wills people to sin?

I found this by a Quaker way back around the 1600's or so. The words of some of these men such as Calvin and Beza and Zwingli are horrible

Robert Barclay's apology

"...First, It is highly injurious to God, because it makes him the author of sin, which of all things is most contrary to his nature. I confess the asserters of this principle deny this consequence; but that is but a pure illusion, seeing it so naturally follows from their doctrine, and is equally ridiculous, as if a man should pertinaciously deny that one and two make three. For if God has decreed that the reprobated ones shall perish, without all respect to their evil deeds, but only of his own pleasure, and if he hath also decreed long before they were in being, or in a capacity to do good or evil, that they should walk in those wicked ways, by which, as by a secondary means, they are led to that end; who, I pray, is the first author and cause thereof but God, who so willed and decreed? This is as natural a consequence as can be: and therefore, although many of the preachers of this doctrine have sought out various, strange, strained, and intricate distinctions to defend their opinion, and avoid this horrid consequence; yet some, and that of the most eminent of them, have been so plain in the matter, as they have put it beyond all doubt, of which I shall instance a few among many passages.

"I say, that by the ordination and will of God, Adam fell. God would have man to to fall" d

"Man is blinded by the will and commandment of God e

"We refer the causes of hardening us to God f "The highest or remote cause of hardening is the will of God" g

"It followeth that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening" h These are Calvin's expressions.

"God," saith Beza, "hath predestinated not only unto damnation, but also unto the causes of it, whomsoever he saw meet" i

"The decree of God cannot be excluded from the causes of corruption" j

"It is certain," saith Zanchi, "that God is the first cause of obduration" k

"Reprobates are held so fast under God's almighty decree, that they cannot but sin and perish l "It is the opinion," saith Pareus, "of our doctors, that God did inevitably decree the temptation and fall of man. The creature sinneth indeed necessarily, by the most just judgment of God. Our men do most rightly affirm, that the fall of man was necessary and inevitable by accident, because of God's decree" m

"God," saith Martyr, "doth incline and force the wills of wicked men into great sins" n

"God," saith Zwingli, "moveth the robber to kill. He killeth, God forcing him thereunto. But thou wilt say, he is forced to sin; I permit truly that he is forced o

"Reprobate persons," saith Piscator, "are absolutely ordained to this twofold end, to undergo everlasting punishment, and necessarily to sin; and therefore to sin, that they may be justly punished p

If these sayings do not plainly and evidently import that God is the author of sin, we must not then seek these men's opinions from their words, but some way else. It seems as if they had assumed to themselves that monstrous and twofold will they feign of God; one by which they declare their minds openly, and another more secret and hidden, which is quite contrary to the other. Nor doth it at all help them, to say that man sins willingly, since that willingness, proclivity, and propensity to evil is, according to their judgment, so necessarily imposed upon him that he cannot but be willing, because God hath willed and decreed him to be so. Which shift is just as if I should take a child incapable to resist me, and throw it down from a great precipice; the weight of the child's body indeed makes it go readily down, and the violence of the fall upon some rock or stone beats out its brains and kills it. Now then I pray, though the body of the child goes willingly down (for I suppose it, as to its mind, incapable of any will), and the weight of its body, and not any immediate stroke of my hand, who perhaps am at a great distance, makes it die, whether is the child or I the proper cause of its death? Let any man of reason judge, if God's part be (with them) as great, yea, more immediate, in the sins of men, as by the testimonies above brought doth appear; whether doth not this make him not only the author of sin, but more unjust than the unjustest of men?

d. Calvin in cap. 3. Gen.

e. Id. 1 Inst. c. 18. s. 1.

f. Id. lib. de praed.

g. Idem, lib. de provid.

h. Id. 3 Inst., cap. 23. s. 1.

i. Beza, lib. de praed.

j. Id. de praed. ad art. 1.

k. Zanchi, de excaecat. q. 5.

l. Idem, lib. 5 de nat. Dei cap. 2. de praed.

m. Pareus, lib. 3. de amiss. gratiae. c. 2. ibid., c. 1.

n. Martyr, in Rom.

o. Zwingli, lib. de prov. c. 5.

p. Resp. ad Vorst. part 1, p. 120.

q. Epist. Hist. Eccl. Lucae Osiand. Cent. 16. lib. 4 cap. 32.

r. Matt. 24:27; John 3:8.

s. Upon John, lib. 1, cap. 2.

t. In Sect. 8.

Apology, Propositions 5 and 6

 

[roman2819]

Sorry, I have read Romans 9 numerous times, and I believe it is you who need to carefully study it, since it is apparent you consider your interpretation the correct one, supporting the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.

I agree that Romans 9 does not mean individual predestination. I have written a detailed analysis of what Paul and Peter meant when they said predestination. Ephesians cjhapters 1, 2 and 3 elaoborate the most about predestination and we can start from there:

Eph 1:4,5: "...He chose us in him before the foundation of the world ... he predestined us .. according to the purpose of his will" ==>
-- Does "us" refer to individuals who are predestined or pre-planned to be saved by God from beginning?
-- Or does "predestined us" mean other people? This can be answered from the next 50 verses, until Ephesian chapter 3.

Eph 1:11-14 -- "[11] In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him ... we who were the first to hope in Christ ... [13] In him you also, when you heard the truth and believed in him ..." ===>
-- Why did Paul said we and you?
--- Who were the 'we' in "we were first to hope in Christ"? The first people to believe in Jesus were Jews, isn't it?
-- Who was 'you" in "When you heard the truth"? Chapter 2:11-3:11 explain it abundantly.

Eph 2:11-14 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh—who are called “uncircumcision”.... you were at that time without the Messiah, alienated from the citizenship of Israel... [13] But now in Christ Jesus you...have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [14] For he ... , the one who made both groups into one ... ==>>
-- Note that both NIV and ESV versions said "you, the Gentiles. so'you' referred to Gentiles.
- Paul was saying how Christ has bought TWO peoples. the Jews and Gentiles, together by offering salvation to both groups. This is the main theme of Ephesians, which is preached in countless sermons

Notice how Paul continued to emphasize God's will for Jews and Gentiles: The word BOTH appears 3 times in the following verses:
2:16-22: to reconcile them BOTH in one body to God through the cross.... [18] so that through him we BOTH have access in one Spirit to the Father ... you are members of the household of God, ,,, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone in whom the whole structure, being joined together ===>
-- Paul was explaining how God had planned to reach out to both Jews and Gentiles, n reconciled them in Him - both groups shared the same redemption, inheritance and Holy Spirit. Jews n Gentiles are the subjects of discussion in chapter 1,2,3.

Rounding it up in chapter 3:
[3:1-6] -- When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations ...[6] This mystery is that the Gentiles are members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
- In Ephesians chapter 1 to 3, Paul explained how Christ fulfilled the purpose of God's will, which is to reconcile BOTH Jews and Gentiles.
-- previous generations from Abraham to David and post-exile generations never knew God would reach out to Gentiles, which was "the mystery of God's will hidden from them. This will is NOT about God chose individuals, When God's plan or will was revealed to apostles' generation, many Christian Jews were shocked and resentful towards Paul (Eph 3:13), Peter n other disciples for preaching to Gentiles.

Back to Ephesians 1:
- Does predestination mean that God choose individuals OR does it mean God preplanned to offer redemption to both Jews and Gentiles? The entire three chapters support the latter theme.
-- If Paul was referring to individual predestination, wouldn't he elaborate on it further? Why would he IMMEDIATELY wrote about reconciliation of both Jews n Gentiles in the next 50 verses (2:13 to 3:13)?
-- Today, some people quoted 20 isolated verses from OT and NT which they think supported individual predestination. If these verses were convincing, i guess there would be no arguing or controversy now. If Paul or the apostles had written and explained about individual predestination substantially, then there would be reason to believe it - but they didn't at all. Why didn't they, if it was true?

-- Eph 1:4,5,7,11 : God chose or predestined us refer to how He reached out to we the Jews first. Writing as a Jew, Paul used the word "we" and "us" as he referred to Jews [1:4,5,7]: "We" refer to Christian JEWS such as the apostles, the earliest disciples who saw Jesus ascended to heaven, the 3000 Jews who believed during Pentecost, and other Christian Jews during apostles' generation -- broadly speaking. And as Paul referred to the audience of his letter, the Gentiles, he said "you too" or "you were also included" [13]. This explained the words "we" "us" and "you".

- Why did Paul said "chose us before the "foundation of the Earth"? As Jewish Christians resented Gentile Christians (which was an extension of their disdain for Gentiles back then), they claimed that Jews were there first, and insisted that Gentile believers observed Sabbath and circumcision (which was a way to assert control and superiority). They even said that God at first never intended to offer redemption to Gentiles, but He suddenly decided to because most of Israel did not turn to Jesus. To reject their arguments, Paul emphasized that way-way back, even before the foundation of the earth, God had already planned or predestined to offer redemption to Gentiles. Even before the earth began, God had decided, that was how EARLY it really started - don't bother arguing that it was conceived lately. "Before the foundation of the earth" is a figure of speech to emphasize that He predestined to offer at the earliest time anyone can think of. This also explain the word "foreknowledge"; God KNEW AHEAD - way, way ahead - that He would reached out to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles. Together these two groups cover everyone on earth, and anyone who confess their sins and ask for forgiveness in Christ would be forgiven and inherit eternal life.

-- When Paul and Peter further mentioned predestination in other Letters (Romans and Peter), they didn't write this way: "God predesined to offer redemption to the Jews first and then the Gentiles." Now, we should NOT expect then to use the exact words we want to see; instead, we have to understand they were writing to people back then, who knew the context - "predestination" was the phenomenal news of the time, spreading over the region to the Gentiles. Today, 2000 years later, some Christians are not interpreting "predestination" according to context of the Letters or even the entire Scripture, which does not even speak about individual predestination minimally; those handful of verses that people (mis)quoted are really (mis)interpretations because they are so awed or carried away by a word "predestine".

 

[Marvin Knox]

......some Christians are not interpreting "predestination" according to context of the Letters or even the entire Scripture, which does not even speak about individual predestination minimally; those handful of verses that people (mis)quoted are really (mis)interpretations because they are so awed or carried away by a word "predestine".

There is no "interpreting" of predestination necessary.

Predestined simply means that an event was destined to happen from before that event occurred. It can apply to the most simple thing like a hair falling from my head this morning, a sparrow or man dying after a certain number of days of life and it can also apply to events concerning salvation a person believing on Christ for salvation or being that person eventually being conformed to His image.

It's really quite simple. God knows everything that will and has happened and He knows everything which could happen if the parameters in which the choices involved in those happenings were made were different.

To cut right to the chase, as it were - God knew before the foundation of the world how many days I will live and, just as surely, He knew that I would confess Christ as my Savior some 60 years ago around a little campfire at the Baptist Bible Camp near Carnation Washington.

There was absolutely no "chance" that what God knew before the foundation of the world would eventually happen would not indeed happen.

Of course - this happening was contingent on what God chose to do. "If this - then this" is the clear teaching of the scriptures. Different parameters = different outcomes.

The fall of Adam was contingent on God doing certain, almost innumerable, things along the way.

I'll spare you a dissertation concerning God's omni-present and providential involvement in every single event in His creation. Suffice it to say that the picture many here in the forum paint of a far off god who simply wound this creation up and is now watching from a distance as it does it's thing is simply not scriptural.

If God does this, and this, and this, and this - then this will happen represents the parameters of predestination. God is clear about that.

That being the case, and since God is the one who chooses the parameters based on almost innumerable actions by Him, God is (as He clearly teaches us) the one who Himself predestines all that happens in His creation.

Within that frame work - we (created in the image of God as we are) make our own choices. But we make them only within the parameters God has set - Him knowing full well from before the foundation of the world the outcomes which will take place.

That's the situation the creation including us finds itself in.

Some rebel and say that they want to be completely independent of God in this respect.

It isn't going to happen.

 

[sunlover1]

Here is an example of a formulation of a doctrine which includes both sides of a seemingly contradictory equation. I have used it before. But I reproduce it again here because it is so concise, so honest, so representative of what Calvinists teach, and it clearly refutes what many wrongly say that Calvinists teach.

I believe it tackles your concerns on several fronts.

I lost the snippet, it was in a format that didn't transfer over to this quoted reply.
No problem, you have quoted Scripture below, and im not a fan of catechisms.

The decrees of God involve all things, and extends to every event, "...according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." Eph 1:11

Even seemingly random of events are ordered by the decree of God. "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." Proverbs 16:33

Even the so called free acts of rational beings are decreed by God. "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." Acts 2:23

Hmm.
Still we're not addressing that God says DO NOT SIN
and so, would not be in any way, an author or originator of it.

I take it that you have no trouble finding free will in the scriptures so I won’t provide examples.

So here we have a dilemma. God is good and yet He decrees acts by men which are bad. His decree that an act happen (or as most would have it allowed to happen) seems to contradict what we all agree with concerning His nature of goodness and inability to sin.

I don't see the dilemna at all.
God can do as He pleases, thus the name, "GOD" lol
He does things in accordance with His plans and He
does work all things together for good for those who
are the called according to His purposes.
I'm just saying that He does not temp sin in any way
shape or form. How can He, when He's said he doesn't.

Rather than do as many people here tend to do and deny or leave out half of the dilemma - the Reformed theologian states both halves in a concise way.

Some say that those halves are contradictory and simply refuse to believe what God says about the matter. Jennifer is an example of such.

But that’s bad theology even if it is done by good people.

Okay, evidently you're seeing that God did ( or decreed ) something evil??
I'm sure not seeing any such thing.
God is ALWAYS Good. always.
devil is ALWAYS evil. always.

The simplest explanation of how the altogether good God can do (or decree) something evil is first acknowledge that God only does good. (That’s precisely what Reformed theologians have done in the case of the Westminster statement. I.e. - what men and demons mean for evil God means for good. Examples are such as the crucifixion of Jesus and the selling of Joseph to the Egyptians. In those examples – God is not doing evil but good even though He is doing it through the evil actions of men.

No need to add that it was accomplished through "evil actions of men"
The fact is that God was doing something good, not evil.
Seriously. God knows a mans heart. He knows exactly what you will do now and tomorrow
and a decade from now.

I won’t tackle your example of the molested boy simply because I can’t possibly see at this time what could be in the end “good” about it.

So you see this, in this mess of quotes and words lol.
Tackling this question is really important.

A similar question was posed to Jesus concerning certain calamities which had come upon His countrymen (the fall of the tower of Siloam and the resultant deaths etc.).

If I can boldly paraphrase what I believe Jesus' attitude was about being asked those questions by His disciples, I will say, “Why do you ask what is not given to you? Don’t you have enough examples in the scriptures to formulate a doctrine which says that bad things happen and yet God will ultimately show that they are good from His perspective?”

A good theology should simply teach what the scriptures teach and let seeming contradictions lay there. What it should not do is what is done here all the time.

well I believe that He does want us to understand every word of Scripture.
But way more than that, He wants us to KNOW HIM
I want to KNOW HIM more and more
He wants us to know Him intimately.
This is a very very important question!

And God didn't ordain or even condone that man hurting that little boy!
God hated it, He knew it would happen.
he SPOKE to you or the other neighbor,
He said PRAY!!!! but you or the other neighbor ignored that
still small voice!!
And now that baby is ruined
and now men are BLAMING GOD

I call bs

Of course he doesn't but that won't stop him from, as a act of judgment, turning you over to it.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:24-25)​

Very similar to the hardening of Pharoah's heart.
But He didn't endorse or celebrate or condone or ordain their sin.

 

[sunlover1]

Sorry Marvin Knox.
I didn't mean to be rude.
Please forgive me.
it's just that this child deserved better.
God tells US to pray.
He doesn't FORCE us to pray though.
He tells us not to sin.
he sure doesn't force us to SIN!!

We have a choice, 'free will' to either sin or pray
or love God or hate God etc. and so forth

God is good ALL THE TIME
devil is evil ALL THE TIME
God is never evil
devil is never good.

If evil is going on, God is not the author of it.

IMO

 

[mark kennedy]

Very similar to the hardening of Pharoah's heart.
But He didn't endorse or celebrate or condone or ordain their sin.

Exactly, Pharaoh had hardened his heart previously, later God hardened his heart. Those were some pretty devastating judgments, God was making it known why Egypt was being judged. The same thing can happen if you harden your heart against the gospel. If you receive the light of revelation reflected in nature God can give you more light (Rev. 1:18-21). But if you receive the light, God can change your heart forever:

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:9-13)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[dhh712]

Simple question

Actually, God's will isn't so simple. According to his decretive will, meaning his Sovereignty over all things that have occurred and will occur, God willed sin to enter into the world. When the question is stated "Does God will us to sin?" in my perception the implication is does God "want" us to sin. The answer to that is no. His perceptive will is what is found in his word, his laws. Abiding by his law, there is no sin. So in that sense he does not will us to sin. Hope that helps, but unfortunately the answer is yes in one way but no in a general way.

 

[sunlover1]

Actually, God's will isn't so simple. According to his decretive will, meaning his Sovereignty over all things that have occurred and will occur, God willed sin to enter into the world.

Thank you.
Where is this written?

 

[Micah888]

Does God sovereignly ordain our sin and use it for his good purposes? Yes. This is exactly what God did with the worst sin ever committed - the betrayal, arrest, and murder of the Son of God. The murder of Jesus was free actions of men which God did not approve of, but he did sovereignly decree in order to accomplish our salvation.

Did you notice how self-contradictory this statement is?

If God *sovereignly ordains* something, then He decrees it, and if He decrees it, then He commands it. Just as He set the boundaries of the seas (Prov 8:29):

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth.

So if God *ordains our sin* -- in this case the betrayal and murder of Christ -- then, according to your theology, He commanded evildoers to do evil. He instigated betrayal and murder. It was no longer *free actions* but actions under Divine compulsion.

So under this warped concept of God's sovereignty (which Satan must delight in), God became responsible for the wickedness of evil men. They had no choice, no free will, no free decision.

 

[roman2819]

There is no "interpreting" of predestination necessary.

Predestined simply means that an event was destined to happen from before that event occurred. It can apply to the most simple thing like a hair falling from my head this morning, a sparrow or man dying after a certain number of days of life and it can also apply to events concerning salvation a person believing on Christ for salvation or being that person eventually being conformed to His image.

It's really quite simple. God knows everything that will and has happened and He knows everything which could happen if the parameters in which the choices involved in those happenings were made were different.

To cut right to the chase, as it were - God knew before the foundation of the world how many days I will live and, just as surely, He knew that I would confess Christ as my Savior some 60 years ago around a little campfire at the Baptist Bible Camp near Carnation Washington.

There was absolutely no "chance" that what God knew before the foundation of the world would eventually happen would not indeed happen.

Of course - this happening was contingent on what God chose to do. "If this - then this" is the clear teaching of the scriptures. Different parameters = different outcomes.

The fall of Adam was contingent on God doing certain, almost innumerable, things along the way.

I'll spare you a dissertation concerning God's omni-present and providential involvement in every single event in His creation. Suffice it to say that the picture many here in the forum paint of a far off god who simply wound this creation up and is now watching from a distance as it does it's thing is simply not scriptural.

If God does this, and this, and this, and this - then this will happen represents the parameters of predestination. God is clear about that.

That being the case, and since God is the one who chooses the parameters based on almost innumerable actions by Him, God is (as He clearly teaches us) the one who Himself predestines all that happens in His creation.

Within that frame work - we (created in the image of God as we are) make our own choices. But we make them only within the parameters God has set - Him knowing full well from before the foundation of the world the outcomes which will take place.

That's the situation the creation including us finds itself in.

Some rebel and say that they want to be completely independent of God in this respect.

It isn't going to happen.

Having read your elaborate answer, my question is : Do you think the apostle Paul was thinking of foreknowledge and predestination in the way you explained it?

Or do you know Paul was not thinking the same way you describe but you rather interpret predestination in the way you see it?

My belief/interpretation of Ephesians 1,2.3 in one sentence, encompassing the words "foreknowledge", "before the foundation of the earth" and "predestination" >>

Right from the beginning, even before the foundation of the earth was laid, God already foreknew that He would predestine (preplanned) to offer redemption to the Jews, and subsequently, the Gentiles, so that both these two people (Jews or Gentiles) are offered the same salvation, same Holy Spirit and same inheritance if they repent in Christ.

You were saying that God had foreknowledge whether people will choose to believe in Him or not. However, the Scripture is really saying that God had foreknowledge of His own plan and action regarding redemption, and He knew He would offer redemption to Jews, and then Gentiles.

 

[roman2819]

Hah! It's actually not a simple question.

Does God want believers to sin in a moral sense? No. God's commands that we not sin.

Does God sovereignly ordain our sin and use it for his good purposes? Yes. This is exactly what God did with the worst sin ever committed - the betrayal, arrest, and murder of the Son of God. The murder of Jesus was free actions of men which God did not approve of, but he did sovereignly decree in order to accomplish our salvation.

Did God sovereignly allowed it or decreed it? If Judas was NOT one of the 12 disciples , he would still have betrayed Jesus by spying on Jesus, then brought the soldiers to arrest Jesus. The Lord chose Judas to be disciple because of unconditional love (to convince him not to betray even though He knew the outcome) and also to manage the timing of the betrayal.

IF Judas had not betrayed Jesus, someone else would. Numerous other people were tempted to betray Jesus after the Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus and offered a reward, and while others were tempted but worried about the consequence of betraying Jesus, Judas managed to overcome his fear and stepped forward.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Having read your elaborate answer, my question is : Do you think the apostle Paul was thinking of foreknowledge and predestination in the way you explained it?

The Apostle Paul, being familiar with the scriptures and the words of Jesus (as we should be) was thinking of predestination in the way I explained it.

He understood the attributes of God, including such things as omniscience, omnipresence, and His sovereignty. He also understood the contingent nature of our choices in juxtaposition with those attributes and God’s sovereign actions.

… ….you rather interpret predestination in the way you see it?

I interpret predestination and omniscience the way the scriptures present it.

The fact that a particular example of God’s predestination of a thing is pointed to in a particular scripture does not in any way say that predestination is limited to only that example or any other examples.

I see things the way the scriptures lead me to see them. Scripture interprets scripture.

The contingent nature of everything which happens is all through the scriptures. The pertinent scriptures are too numerous to quote. But here are a few examples.

God not only knows everything that will happen – He also knows everything that would happen if the existing paradigm were different. God often speaks of those things which are not as though they were.

“Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit. David stayed in the wilderness in the strongholds, and remained in the hill country in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not deliver him into his hand.” 1 Samuel 23:11-14

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” Luke 10:13

"And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.” Matthew 11:23

Each one of these simple examples show us that God’s omniscience extends to those things which could have happened had they happened in a different paradigm and, most importantly, had HE chosen to act differently before and during those events.

You were saying that God had foreknowledge whether people will choose to believe in Him or not. However, the Scripture is really saying that God had foreknowledge of His own plan and action regarding redemption, and He knew He would offer redemption to Jews, and then Gentiles.

God had "foreknowledge" of everything that has happened in His creation. Nothing has taken Him by surprise.

There is no “however” to what you say above. The scriptures teach both.

The former is contingent on the latter and that is what I have said.

The choices and actions we make are contingent on the innumerable choices and actions of God.

No creation = nothing but God. No man in the image of God = no fall of creation.

No garden = no tree. No tree = no serpent in the tree.

No command not to eat = no succumbing to temptation by eating from the tree.

No fall = no redemption.

Etc. and etc.

Everything that happens is contingent on so many choices and actions by God at any given time that it is literally true when He says that “in Him we live and move and have our being”.

None of this is to say that God “forces” anyone to make any particular choice. No one I know of, including the most rabid Calvinists, teach such a thing.

I disagree with a number of things current Calvinists teach. But the predestination of all things isn't one of them.

God’s sovereign choice to predestine any particular thing in no way negates the natural laws governing those things.

That is the case whether we are talking about the geological laws involved in the great earthquakes of the Tribulation period or whether we are talking about the choices you and I make.

Quite frankly, when I hear some of the things said by some people concerning God not working all things according to His will, it seems they must be worshipping a different God than the omniscient, omnipresent, providentially controlling sovereign creator and sustain-er of the universe.

I know that most folks, from a simple theological viewpoint, tend to think and pray as if God was only transcendent and not also immanent. From a day to day human position it matters little. We simply pray to a God who is "out there" listening and we wait for His answers to manifest in the creation.

But when this non-scriptural simplistic view of things rubs up against other doctrines such as we are considering here - it often winds up making it impossible for those who hold that simplistic view to understand things like predestination and the sovereignty of God and the like.