• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

How can man violate the will of God

donforrest

Newbie
Jan 24, 2014
1
0
✟22,611.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Gen 2:16 reads "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"

I understand from this verse that man is given the liberty to eat from every tree. The next verse talks about the exception to the rule.

Since everything from the most significant event to the most mundane and day-to-day ordinary activities are already foreordained by God, I assume that that includes every choice of food that man ate. When man ate his first meal for example, I assume that his choice of fruit was determined by (1) his own free will which God gave him, and (2) God's foreordained will for the all man's action.

I can appreciate the thought that God's foreordaining of things to come may not contradict his giving of free will to man in making choices that are decided later. In this simple case, Calvinism, from my understanding, believes that God is the primary cause and man the secondary cause of the man's choice of his first meal.

From such reasoning, I see that the same is true when man ate from the forbidden tree. (Some might add that the same is true when man crucified the Son of God.)

It is easy to see that from God's perspective, world history can be likened to a finished novel where every word printed on the page is fixed and not going to change. From man's perspective, life is full of choices and uncertainty. Now man, however enlightened, will still make decisions from life's choices and feel uncertain, say on how his life might turn out.

It is easy to see that when man commits an act, it is but the unfolding of what God has foreordained to happen. When God is sorry for how man acted, He is sorry because that is the right way to feel and NOT because that God would have willed man's action otherwise. The thought that God was sorry for man's action because man violated His will seems to be impossible because God himself is the primary cause of man's choices (thought not morally responsible for it.)

So my question is, how can man (secondary cause of action) violate the will of God (primary cause of action) when man's violation is precisely God's foreordained act?

If God perfectly foreordained whatsoever that came to pass according to his good pleasure, will He be sorry that a foreordained state of affairs came to pass?

(Please note that I appreciate the fact that man is morally responsible being the secondary cause of his own actions.)
 
Last edited:

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟35,369.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Gen 2:16 reads "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"

I understand from this verse that man is given the liberty to eat from every tree. The next verse talks about the exception to the rule.

Since everything from the most significant event to the most mundane and day-to-day ordinary activities are already foreordained by God, I assume that that includes every choice of food that man ate. When man ate his first meal for example, I assume that his choice of fruit was determined by (1) his own free will which God gave him, and (2) God's foreordained will for the all man's action.

I can appreciate the thought that God's foreordaining of things to come may not contradict his giving of free will to man in making choices that are decided later. In this simple case, Calvinism, from my understanding, believes that God is the primary cause and man the secondary cause of the man's choice of his first meal.

From such reasoning, I see that the same is true when man ate from the forbidden tree. (Some might add that the same is true when man crucified the Son of God.)

It is easy to see that from God's perspective, world history can be likened to a finished novel where every word printed on the page is fixed and not going to change. From man's perspective, life is full of choices and uncertainty. Now man, however enlightened, will still make decisions from life's choices and feel uncertain, say on how his life might turn out.

It is easy to see that when man commits an act, it is but the unfolding of what God has foreordained to happen. When God is sorry for how man acted, He is sorry because that is the right way to feel and NOT because that God would have willed man's action otherwise. The thought that God was sorry for man's action because man violated His will seems to be impossible because God himself is the primary cause of man's choices (thought not morally responsible for it.)

So my question is, how can man (secondary cause of action) violate the will of God (primary cause of action) when man's violation is precisely God's foreordained act?

If God perfectly foreordained whatsoever that came to pass according to his good pleasure, will He be sorry that a foreordained state of affairs came to pass?

(Please note that I appreciate the fact that man is morally responsible being the secondary cause of his own actions.)

Hi. Perhaps this may help:
The Will of God by R.C. Sproul

Basically, we can understand the concept of "God's will" in at least three different ways.

Whatever God wills, will happen <--his decree
God is not willing that anyone murder <---his law

Sometimes what God reveals, law-wise, is not what he wills, decree wise. For example, we know that God says "Do not murder" (his law), but at the same time, we know from Acts 4:27-28 that the murder of Christ was "God's predestined plan", in other words, you could say that God "willed" (his decree) some people to murder Christ.

Using this train of thought, you could see why God would be upset that people disobeyed his law, because they are rebelling against his prescribed law. However, God's decree, ie, what he brings to pass, is a totally different matter. Using the Acts 4:27-28 example, we know that God held those men accountable for murdering Christ (Peter said they were "wicked" men), but nevertheless they were simply fulfilling God's decree.

God can decree that something happen yet at the same time, somehow, hold men accountable for their sins.

I don't claim to understand how this is possible, I just know that the Bible gives examples of it, therefore, I am bound to believe it.

God is too big to understand how He works.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Man cannot frustrate God's eternal plan, but he can, and does, disobey God's commandments. In so doing he brings condemnation upon himself.

Although it is tempting to think that divine foreordination should at least partly relieve men of responsibility for their sins, that is clearly not how God sees it. Their guilt requires only that they be free agents and that they sin willingly.

I suppose part of the problem might reside in the anthropomorphism which attends any talk about God. In talking about preordination we are talking about something which is only possible for God, and so the comparison with human psychology breaks down. There is no need to doubt that God's anger at the commission of sin is real, even though it is part of his eternal plan.
 
Upvote 0

dhh712

Mrs. Calvinist Dark Lord
Jul 16, 2013
778
283
Gettysburg
✟49,997.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I suppose part of the problem might reside in the anthropomorphism which attends any talk about God. In talking about preordination we are talking about something which is only possible for God, and so the comparison with human psychology breaks down. There is no need to doubt that God's anger at the commission of sin is real, even though it is part of his eternal plan.

Yes, such as the anthropomorphism in Genesis 6 where it talks about how God repented that He had ever made man--He actually didn't feel that way, it is just the only way we as humans can understand it (more or less God bringing Himself down--so to speak, condescending--to our level).

I had suspected that that might be the case, that how it seems that we violate the will of God but actually do not, is something that we will just not be able to understand because our limited minds can not comprehend the infinite God. Coming from atheism myself, I can understand how this can be frustrating to those who do not have a relationship with God. Without having any experience of Him, they can not force themselves to accept something that just seems completely foreign and illogical (which is just the way it is, they really can't force themselves to).

The sovereignty of God is so awe-inspiring as well as such a comfort. To know that He has ordained every minute of our lives, even the painful things.
 
Upvote 0