I sinned - was/is it God's will?

[armothe]

From what I understand Calvinism teaches that man has no free will of his own.
(please correct me if I am in error).

Does this only apply to man's will to do good? Or does it apply to all aspects of man's will.

When we sin is it our will/desire? Or God's will/desire?

-A

 

[geebob]

A calvinist might say that your sin was against God's revealed will but it was in line with his soverign will since nothing can happen without God's determination.


However, if you are a christian, then this interpretation, or any explination in which God's soverign decision preceeded your sin is in fundamental clash with 1st corinthians 10:13

13No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

So how can we avoide doing what God has determined that we will do? What way is their to do other than how God has determined our actions.

There is no way if determination means what theological determinists say it means.

Thus if you sin and theological determinism is true, then God was not faithful.

 

[Mr Potato Head]

Or how about 1 Thessalonians 4:3 - "It is God's will that you should avoid sexual immorality"... if theological determinists can reconcile this with your belief my hat is off to your dancing abilities.

 

[frumanchu]

A calvinist might say ... However, if you are a christian, then...

You perhaps might want to avoid a juxtaposition in such terms as it sounds an awful lot like you're saying Calvinists are not Christians.

As far as "determinism" I think there is further differentiation needed. There is a difference between God actively bringing about our sin in a strictly determinist manner and God permitting sin to happen. The very fact that sin exists leaves us with two options: God is unwilling to stop it, or God is unable to stop it. Since the latter leaves God as less than God, we must look to the nature of the former. Is He unwilling to stop it because He actively wills it to happen, or is He unwilling to stop it because it is in accordance with a larger purpose?

In the immediate sense, the fact that he does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability does not necessarily mean that we will in fact endure every time, only that it is always within our ability to resist.

 

[geebob]

You perhaps might want to avoid a juxtaposition in such terms as it sounds an awful lot like you're saying Calvinists are not Christians.

oops! that is not my intention at all. What I mean is that this passage is at least the closest thing to proof of libertarian free will that at least christians posess. The passage applies to Christians. This doesn't directly address the issue of free will with regard to salvation, but it is nevertheless a gaping hole in the theological determinists paradigm, unless they hold that Christians never sin. I did meet such a fella who insisted on that, but he was a free will theist anyhow.

There is a difference between God actively bringing about our sin in a strictly determinist manner and God permitting sin to happen.

passivity won't cut it. This verse says that God will not let the temptation to get beyond our ability. If there is anything in God's will that makes it necessary for us to sin, then God was not faithful to keep it within our ability to resist.

God is unwilling to stop it, or God is unable to stop it.

or God, concerned with our spiritual growth desires that we flex our spiritual muscle according to the power that He gave us.

the fact that he does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability does not necessarily mean that we will in fact endure every time, only that it is always within our ability to resist.

if it is truly within our ability to resist, then it is false that we will sin at a certain point and it is instead true that we might and might not sin. It is not logically possible to do other than what you will do thus it is not within anyone's ability unless we bring soft facts into the discussion. If you are able to resist sin, and it is true that you will sin, then you must be able to bring it about that it is false that you will sin though it was previously true that you would sin. Otherwise, it is not within your ability to avoid sin and God has not been faithful as 1st corinthians 10:13 describes faithfulness.

 

[frumanchu]

passivity won't cut it. This verse says that God will not let the temptation to get beyond our ability. If there is anything in God's will that makes it necessary for us to sin, then God was not faithful to keep it within our ability to resist.

You are confusing what is being referred to as far as our ability. He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able (a potentiality) to resist or overcome. The fact that we do succumb to a particular temptation does not mean that we never had the ability to overcome it, only that we did not excersize that ability.

or God, concerned with our spiritual growth desires that we flex our spiritual muscle according to the power that He gave us.

That would fall under "God is unwilling to stop us"

if it is truly within our ability to resist, then it is false that we will sin at a certain point and it is instead true that we might and might not sin. It is not logically possible to do other than what you will do thus it is not within anyone's ability unless we bring soft facts into the discussion. If you are able to resist sin, and it is true that you will sin, then you must be able to bring it about that it is false that you will sin though it was previously true that you would sin. Otherwise, it is not within your ability to avoid sin and God has not been faithful as 1st corinthians 10:13 describes faithfulness.

This sounds an awful lot like the fallacy of Open Theism...the notion that if God has foreknowledge of a person's decision regarding something, then that choice was not a free choice because they couldn't have chosen to do anything but what was foreknown. What the objector is demanding is that we completely discard the Law of Non-Contradiction and say that something can actually be what it's not.

This is the type of argument you're using. You're saying that if in actuality we do sin, then we never had the ability not to sin. We DID have the ability in the sense of a volitional choice given the alternatives, and we had the means at our disposal to make the proper choice, HOWEVER we did not utilize them. So we have the ability to resist, but not the ability to do other than what we will do. What you are saying is that God can't know that we are going to sin because if He did know He would be unfaithful to His promise.

Is this right?

 

[geebob]

He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able (a potentiality) to resist or overcome. The fact that we do succumb to a particular temptation does not mean that we never had the ability to overcome it, only that we did not excersize that ability.

so what is the potential to resist sin that God allows us to commit? What potential is there to resist sin that are part of God's ordination? Can you put a percentage on the chance that we will act on that potential? If you are a consistent calvinist, I'd say that chance is zero. And that is also the measure of the potential.

That would fall under "God is unwilling to stop us"

you missed the point. You made it sound like the only two options were that we sin because God allows (in the sense that the allowance is co-extensive with a gaurantee) or because he is unable. My suggestion is that God allows us to freely resist sin and that entails the uncertain possibility that we may sin.

the notion that if God has foreknowledge of a person's decision

the only reason to deny foreknowledge here is when one admits to soft facts and that God's knowledge is infallible, thus God cannot know soft facts because if he did, his knowledge would fail all the time since soft facts often have changes in truth value.

I reject that notion. I am a nominalist about soft facts. In other words, I recognize that soft facts have a place in our everyday thought, but I don't believe that they objectively represent reality. I believe God has unqualified complete and exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. But I don't agree with what you might believe about the future. And I don't believe what a classical arminian believes about the future. I believe the future is unsettled, so to know the future is to know it as it is, partly unsettled. accurate knowledge is to accurately comprehend the object of knowledge as it truly is and no-one can fault me on that. You could disagree with me about the way the future is, and if you are a calvinist, you do indeed disagree, but you cannot hold faithfully to a real definition of knowledge and insist that I don't believe that God has it exhaustively.

And open theism is not a fallacy at all. It is supported by a wealth of scriptures, problem passages can almost always be dealt with, and as far as foreknowledge of free actions are concerned, it follows quite consistently from a definition of freedom agreed upon by free will theists. Perhaps you would disagree with that definition of freedom, but that is a far cry from a fallacy.

but that is all I'll say about it. The topic isn't about me, the topic is about Calvinisms claim that everything that we do is God's will (be that some secret will, revealed will, soverign will, etc.)

you may rebut what I said, but I won't respond in this thread. I think this topic would do nicely to stay on track. Post another topic and pm me a link if you want to engage me further on open theism or foreknowledge.

You're saying that if in actuality we do sin, then we never had the ability not to sin.

Not in the slightest.

You lose all sight of tenses here and the types of propositions I'm using. I'm saying that if we will sin, we then we never had the ability to not sin. Whether we have sinned or not is irrelevent. That does not mean that it was true that we would have sinned at the point of temptation.

It doesn't have to be true that we will sin nor does it have to be true that we will not sin. You see, these two statements are not contradictory. They are contrary, and contrary statements can share a false truth value. And what would be true in place of those "will" statements is called a "conjoined might statement." You might and you might not sin. There is the logical description of one who is tempted to sin and really could sin, and yet God makes a way out that can really be taken.

We DID have the ability in the sense of a volitional choice given the alternatives

no one has the ability to do the logically impossible.

So we have the ability to resist, but not the ability to do other than what we will do.

If we had the ability to resist and what is considered for resisting is "what we will do" then clearly we have the ability to do other than what we will do.

Unless you are admitting to soft facts, then I don't see how this assertion of yours remotely resembles anything coherent.

What you are saying is that God can't know that we are going to sin because if He did know He would be unfaithful to His promise.

I would say that and I have said it in this post, but I am content to just deal with the calvinist assertion that whatsoever comes to pass has been decreed by God.

 

[frumanchu]

so what is the potential to resist sin that God allows us to commit? What potential is there to resist sin that are part of God's ordination? Can you put a percentage on the chance that we will act on that potential? If you are a consistent calvinist, I'd say that chance is zero. And that is also the measure of the potential.

But now you're talking about resistance to two different things: the temptation to sin, and the will of God. Foreknowledge does not in and of itself equate to compulsion or causality. You are now trying to refer to two choices as the same choice. In a given instance I have the real choice of whether or not to sin. That God foreknows the choice I will make does not mean that I therefore had no choice. I clearly did. What you are saying is that my inability to choose to do other than what I will do (mind you, as a finite creature WITHOUT the foreknowledge of my own action) equates to an inability to actually choose in that situation.

you missed the point. You made it sound like the only two options were that we sin because God allows (in the sense that the allowance is co-extensive with a gaurantee) or because he is unable. My suggestion is that God allows us to freely resist sin and that entails the uncertain possibility that we may sin.

No, I believe the point was crystal clear. The fact that God guarantees us the means by which we MAY overcome temptation does not mean that He therefore guarantees that we WILL in fact overcome it. You are reading more into the guarantee than is actually there.

And open theism is not a fallacy at all. It is supported by a wealth of scriptures, problem passages can almost always be dealt with, and as far as foreknowledge of free actions are concerned, it follows quite consistently from a definition of freedom agreed upon by free will theists. Perhaps you would disagree with that definition of freedom, but that is a far cry from a fallacy.

I would absolutely disagree with that definition of freedom because it is logically unsound. It is an attempt to claim from God some measure of sovereignty over our own destiny by projecting a cloud over our decisions so that we can have a "truly free choice" as though God's foreknowledge of an individual choice was itself a causal factor in its outcome. When all is said and done, it is a haughty intellectual attemtp to deny God His own divine attributes rather than face the notion of a God who would justly and knowingly allow men to perish by doing nothing to prevent them from bringing about their own destruction.

but that is all I'll say about it. The topic isn't about me, the topic is about Calvinisms claim that everything that we do is God's will (be that some secret will, revealed will, soverign will, etc.)

You have brought a position to the table which stands in opposition to the Calvinist position. As such, addressing and exposing the error in that position is part of defending (and defining) the Calvinist position.

you may rebut what I said, but I won't respond in this thread. I think this topic would do nicely to stay on track. Post another topic and pm me a link if you want to engage me further on open theism or foreknowledge.

This forum will do just fine.

You lose all sight of tenses here and the types of propositions I'm using. I'm saying that if we will sin, we then we never had the ability to not sin.

Again, you are confusing two different actions in terms of ability, gb. In general, regenerate men have the ability to not sin. If we did not have the ability to not sin, we would never not sin. Likewise, we retain the ability to sin. Thus in general we possess both the ability to sin and the ability to not sin. This is a constant for Christians. As such there is never a decision we make in which we do not have both the ability to sin and the ability to not sin. Every action occurs in this context. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration of our hearts that we obtain the ability to not sin. As Christians we have the power of the Holy Spirit 'at our disposal' in resisting temptations and choosing to not sin.

The fact that God, in His omniscience, knows what choices we will make before we actually make them does not negate either the ability to sin or the ability to not sin given that choice. What we do NOT possess is the ability to choose other than what we will choose, because by definition if we were to choose other than what we will choose, then it cannot be said that we would choose it in the first place. In effect, there is no choice present, because a choice requires two alternative options (in this case to choose to do what we will do or choose not to do what we will do) and since we as finite creatures have no way of knowing what we will choose until the choice has already been made there is nothing to choose between.

It doesn't have to be true that we will sin nor does it have to be true that we will not sin. You see, these two statements are not contradictory. They are contrary, and contrary statements can share a false truth value. And what would be true in place of those "will" statements is called a "conjoined might statement." You might and you might not sin. There is the logical description of one who is tempted to sin and really could sin, and yet God makes a way out that can really be taken.

It is not a question of potentiality, it is a question of actuality. As I explained above, the ability to resist the temptation successfully does not necessitate that the ability be excersized. God's foreknowledge in regards to our actions is not one of mere potentiality where the outcome is uncertain. Such a notion is quite easily dismissed by Scripture.

no one has the ability to do the logically impossible.

Agreed. God included

If we had the ability to resist and what is considered for resisting is "what we will do" then clearly we have the ability to do other than what we will do.

Unless you are admitting to soft facts, then I don't see how this assertion of yours remotely resembles anything coherent.

As I have labored to point out, there is a differentiation in terms of ability between resisting the temptation and resisting the actual choice that will be made.

I'd like a clearer definition on just what you mean by "soft facts."

I would say that and I have said it in this post, but I am content to just deal with the calvinist assertion that whatsoever comes to pass has been decreed by God.

I would certainly welcome then your explanation of Jesus' prophesy regarding Peter's denial (Matt 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, John 13:38).

 

[geebob]

AS I said, I would and could take this question all the way to it's implications on foreknowledge and open theism, but for the time being, I'd rather stick to what appears to me to be the topic starters intention.

Is it God's will that I sin? The calvinist says yes. The free will theist (be he a typical arminian or open theist) says no.

I say that the affirmative conflicts with 1 corinthians 10:13

But now you're talking about resistance to two different things: the temptation to sin, and the will of God.

So what. You still can't resist the will of God and if temptation is entailed by God's will, then you cannot resist that temptation for the reason that you can't resist the will of God.

The fact that God guarantees us the means by which we MAY overcome temptation does not mean that He therefore guarantees that we WILL in fact overcome it.

I agree. That one may overcome tempation does negate that he won't overcome it though. So it is false that he won't and it is false that he will. What is instead true is that he may and may not.

I would absolutely disagree with that definition of freedom because it is logically unsound. It is an attempt to claim from God some measure of sovereignty over our own destiny by projecting a cloud over our decisions so that we can have a "truly free choice" as though God's foreknowledge of an individual choice was itself a causal factor in its outcome. When all is said and done, it is a haughty intellectual attemtp to deny God His own divine attributes rather than face the notion of a God who would justly and knowingly allow men to perish by doing nothing to prevent them from bringing about their own destruction.

this is far from an issue of logic. And it isn't any of those other things either. But I will not explain that here.

As such there is never a decision we make in which we do not have both the ability to sin and the ability to not sin.

even when God wills that we sin? So what does that look like when it happens? So people go around avoiding sin even though that was contrary to God's soverign will? If that is not possible then I don't see how you can maintain that we have both abilities at the same time.

It is not a question of potentiality, it is a question of actuality.

potentialities can become actualities. Otherwise, thy aren't really potential.

I'd like a clearer definition on just what you mean by "soft facts."

It is a proposition who's truth value can change from true to false and vice versa. But it is not that important here since I am attempting to stick to the discussion on God's will.

As I explained above, the ability to resist the temptation successfully does not necessitate that the ability be excersized.

of course not, but the ability can be excersized. Not so if it is against God's will, unless you would like to give me examples where someone excersized an ability that was contrary to God's soverign will.

I would certainly welcome then your explanation of Jesus' prophesy regarding Peter's denial

I would certainly like to give it elsewhere.

 

[Gamecock]

From what I understand Calvinism teaches that man has no free will of his own.
(please correct me if I am in error).

Does this only apply to man's will to do good? Or does it apply to all aspects of man's will.

When we sin is it our will/desire? Or God's will/desire?

-A

I guess the bottom line, as found in scripture is this:

armothe: You are a sinner dressed in filthy rags!


Repent and believe!



Does that answer your question?

 

[frumanchu]

AS I said, I would and could take this question all the way to it's implications on foreknowledge and open theism, but for the time being, I'd rather stick to what appears to me to be the topic starters intention.

Is it God's will that I sin? The calvinist says yes. The free will theist (be he a typical arminian or open theist) says no.

I say that the affirmative conflicts with 1 corinthians 10:13

Does God have any power whatsoever to prevent a person from sinning? If yes, then by virtue of the fact that men do indeed still sin their sin must in some manner be within the will of God. If no, then God is quite simply not God.

So what. You still can't resist the will of God and if temptation is entailed by God's will, then you cannot resist that temptation for the reason that you can't resist the will of God.

Oh, but there is quite a difference between God decreeing and authoring one's sins and God allowing them. God need not compel one to sin in order for that sin to happen according to His will.

I agree. That one may overcome tempation does negate that he won't overcome it though. So it is false that he won't and it is false that he will. What is instead true is that he may and may not.

So what you're saying is that, for example, I could pull up to a stop sign where the road dead ends and I could only turn left or right. There is potential (ability) for me to turn either left or right. There is NOTHING preventing me from doing either. What you are saying is that God cannot know with absolute certainty that I will turn left until "after" I've done so? And not only that, what you're saying is that it was never POSSIBLE for me to turn right?

this is far from an issue of logic. And it isn't any of those other things either. But I will not explain that here.

I disagree. Logic most certainly plays a part.

even when God wills that we sin? So what does that look like when it happens? So people go around avoiding sin even though that was contrary to God's soverign will? If that is not possible then I don't see how you can maintain that we have both abilities at the same time.

But you seem to hold to the mistaken notion that God's ordaining an event means He is the causal factor in its occurance.

I would certainly like to give it elsewhere.

I tell you what, geebob. You start a thread and explain away. I think it is directly relevant to the topic at hand, but I'm not going to dance around. Start your thread and state your case.

 

[geebob]

Does God have any power whatsoever to prevent a person from sinning? If yes, then by virtue of the fact that men do indeed still sin their sin must in some manner be within the will of God. If no, then God is quite simply not God.

false delema.

another option is that God has the power but in consistency with his purposes in creating us free and his desire to see us grow, sometimes he wants his children to flex their spiritual muscles and resist of their own free will, which entails the possibility that they won't.

Oh, but there is quite a difference between God decreeing and authoring one's sins and God allowing them. God need not compel one to sin in order for that sin to happen according to His will.

so you don't think that everything happens according to God's will? That's not theological determinism.

Or does his allowance function such that what he allows necessarily will happen. In that case, I fail to see how God made a "way out."

There is NOTHING preventing me from doing either.

There has to be nothing to prevent you from going the right way. If there isn't, then God has not made a way. A way that can't be taken is no way.

yes that's the picture that 1 cor. 10:13 paints (provided that Christians do in fact sin).

What you are saying is that God cannot know with absolute certainty that I will turn left until "after" I've done so?

as much as I'd like to take the conversation down that road...

But for the time being, I will stick to the original focus.

And not only that, what you're saying is that it was never POSSIBLE for me to turn right?

If God maed the way, then it was possible. However, if the chance that that possibility would be taken is zero, well that's not really possible.

I disagree. Logic most certainly plays a part.

at most it structures your arguement. It doesn't make your argument necessary for those who reject your premises.

logic is empty. It does not provide information. It only describes the limits of the information that we could have.

But you seem to hold to the mistaken notion that God's ordaining an event means He is the causal factor in its occurance.

I'm content to just argue that a possibility with a zeor percent chance of occuring is no possibility at all. I don't need to delve into causation for that. As a matter of fact, if I were to take up the arguement agasint forknowledge and freedom, causation would play no part in my arguement at all.

I tell you what, geebob. You start a thread and explain away. I think it is directly relevant to the topic at hand, but I'm not going to dance around. Start your thread and state your case.

perhaps at a later time. perhaps soon.

 

[armothe]

I guess the bottom line, as found in scripture is this:

armothe: You are a sinner dressed in filthy rags!


Repent and believe!



Does that answer your question?

Actually, I (personally) have been saved by the blood of Christ and no longer appear as a sinner in God's eyes. No longer do I wear filthy rags, but rather am dressed in a pure white robe.

-A

 

[Gamecock]

Actually, I (personally) have been saved by the blood of Christ and no longer appear as a sinner in God's eyes. No longer do I wear filthy rags, but rather am dressed in a pure white robe.

-A

Super! Then you and all the saved (read:elect) are what the great theologian Martin Luther referred to as "a pile of dung covered with white snow."



(BTW, upon Glorification you too will be a Calvinist!)

 

[armothe]

Super! Then you and all the saved (read:elect) are what the great theologian Martin Luther referred to as "a pile of dung covered with white snow."

Martin Luther (along with John Calvin) was nothing more than what you and I are. Their words should be taken a grain of salt.

Just because Luther said it - doesn't make it so.

(BTW, upon Glorification you too will be a Calvinist!)

I seriously doubt this.

-A

 

[armothe]

Well, I figure most people have had a chance to vote on this thread.
Unanimously (so far) people seem to believe that it is not God's will for us to sin.

This leaves me with the question:

If man committing sin/s is not God's will; and God is soverign...

Why does sin still exist? Why do we still sin?

-A

 

[Gamecock]

Martin Luther (along with John Calvin) was nothing more than what you and I are.

That is right! In God's eye, they are just the same as all of us! Isn't that great!

But that doesn't mean that God didn't use them now does it?

And before you get carried away, the grain of salt theory applies to your preacher, your parents, all people you come in contact with! It even applies to you and I.

I seriously doubt this.

What, you don't believe in Scripture? I tried to explain this on another thread, but needed clarification from you on one detail!

BTW, in case you missed it: I asked you in on that thread if you believe in the Trinity, you know: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

How say you?

 

[Gamecock]

Well, I figure most people have had a chance to vote on this thread.
Unanimously (so far) people seem to believe that it is not God's will for us to sin.

This leaves me with the question:

If man committing sin/s is not God's will; and God is soverign...

Why does sin still exist? Why do we still sin?

-A

Try and keep up, I'm typing as slow as I can. I've already answered your query:

I guess the bottom line, as found in scripture is this:

armothe: You are a sinner dressed in filthy rags!

Repent and believe!



Now does that answer your question?

BTW, your rags are still filthy, you've just been forgiven....

 

[armothe]

the grain of salt theory applies to your preacher, your parents, all people you come in contact with! It even applies to you and I.

Exactly.

BTW, in case you missed it: I asked you in on that thread if you believe in the Trinity, you know: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. How say you?

That's great and all but can we please get back to the topic at hand? Thank you in advance for not dragging this off-topic.

-A

 

[armothe]

Now does that answer your question?

No, it doesn't. Now if you have nothing more to add please allow others to post their thoughts.

-A