Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Derf]

Some limited Cases...Revelation?

Yes, or Daniel or various other prophecies, many of which we can't even agree whether they've been fulfilled already or not, so there's at least a little confusion as to how they were/will be fulfilled.

 

[QvQ]

If God knows something about the future, then that means it's because it is
1. Something He intends to accomplish
2. Something already thought about by an existing creature (including angels and Satan), or
3. Something that derives from 1 and/or 2 or something done in the past by God or another existing creature (like the path of planets and comets, or the result of Adam eating the fruit)

God does know something about the future because
1) God is omniscient
2) God is omnipotent
3) God is omnipresent

The arguments concerning man not being accountable for his sins if he could not freely choose to sin is a subject that Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin addressed.
Augustine and Calvin both agreed that man was made righteous through the Will of God, We can only choose good through the grace and mercy of God. Calvin said, that fear of God was base of piety. (Most Calvin bashers either go after the "once saved always saved" which is not Calvin or "sinners in the hands of an angry God" Meanie Calvin.) However it is the fear of offending the beloved and having the beloved withdraw that is the basis of piety and obedience to God. So Calvin and Augustine both hold that man can sin against God and lose salvation, be held accountable.

Aquinas argued for election and predestination, as a king is chosen before his birth, elected and anointed but in the instance of Saul, a king can lose a crown. Aquinas agreed with predestination and election. But it is part providence and part free will. Saul was in the circumstances where he could "choose" to lose his crown but ultimately, the circumstances, providence was arranged by God so it is a very limited "free will" situation.

 

[Derf]

God does know something about the future because
1) God is omniscient
2) God is omnipotent
3) God is omnipresent

The arguments concerning man not being accountable for his sins if he could not freely choose to sin is a subject that Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin addressed.
Augustine and Calvin both agreed that man was made righteous through the Will of God, We can only choose good through the grace and mercy of God. Calvin said, that fear of God was base of piety. (Most Calvin bashers either go after the "once saved always saved" which is not Calvin or "sinners in the hands of an angry God" Meanie Calvin.) However it is the fear of offending the beloved and having the beloved withdraw that is the basis of piety and obedience to God. So Calvin and Augustine both hold that man can sin against God and lose salvation, be held accountable.

Aquinas argued for election and predestination, as a king is chosen before his birth, elected and anointed but in the instance of Saul, a king can lose a crown. Aquinas agreed with predestination and election. But it is part providence and part free will. Saul was in the circumstances where he could "choose" to lose his crown but ultimately, the circumstances, providence was arranged by God so it is a very limited "free will" situation.

Ok, but what do you say?

It seems that if there is any part of it that is freely chosen by the recipient of grace, and God knows it before the recipient exists, then the recipient is NOT the one who did the choosing...someone else did. Which is a contradiction, as you can't freely make a choice that was decided before you existed.

 

[John Mullally]

Ok, but what do you say?

It seems that if there is any part of it that is freely chosen by the recipient of grace, and God knows it before the recipient exists, then the recipient is NOT the one who did the choosing...someone else did. Which is a contradiction, as you can't freely make a choice that was decided before you existed.

As Leighton Flowers says: If you are not response-able, you cannot be responsible.

 

[QvQ]

Ok, but what do you say?

I say that circumstances of birth choose whether a person will ever hear the Word of God. If a person never hears the good news, then the recipient of that omission is not the one who did the choosing. Still held accountable, yes...?
I don't have the answer to that question.

I do know that truly great and respected minds have taken the question of God's will (God's Sovereignty) and free will very seriously as man is accountable, but then again is he? Consider the paragraph above.
Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin all believed in election, predestination and limited free will. All of them agreed that even a man who was saved could lose his salvation. God could withdraw His hand.
Worth the read. Especially when there are threads like these that misrepresent the argument. I can post quotes from Aquinas and be labeled a Heretical Calvinist. The answers given are very much in agreement on some points.
The answer to the question is worth researching.

 

[Derf]

I say that circumstances of birth choose whether a person will ever hear the Word of God. If a person never hears the good news, then the recipient of that omission is not the one who did the choosing. Still held accountable, yes...?
I don't have the answer to that question.

I do know that truly great and respected minds have taken the question of God's will (God's Sovereignty) and free will very seriously as man is accountable, but then again is he? Consider the paragraph above.
Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin all believed in election, predestination and limited free will. All of them agreed that even a man who was saved could lose his salvation. God could withdraw His hand.
Worth the read. Especially when there are threads like these that misrepresent the argument. I can post quotes from Aquinas and be labeled a Heretical Calvinist. The answers given are very much in agreement on some points.
The answer to the question is worth researching.

I'd rather you post scripture. Heresy is merely one man's opinion 's another until we bring scripture into the conversation, though it still must be rightly divided.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Huh? How does "plan B" equate to multiple replacement plans? I can see why you're having trouble with my logic when you can't count to 1.

More than one is 'multiple'. But if you think otherwise, if plan B is possible, then why not plan C, or even plan Z ?

Which you don't know from scripture. Rather you say that as a fact, then try to wrestle scripture into your belief.

Which I know from both Scripture and Reason.

Mark Quayle said:
God is not lying! Where's the lie, if I'm right? "God would have, but you disobeyed", is not the same as to say, "God had planned to, but you messed it up."

In this case it is exactly the same. Thus, your view says, "God wouldn't have, because He will cause you to mess up." there is no contingency.

Here's another one:
Luke 13:34 KJV — O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Jesus willed to do one thing, the people of Jerusalem willed another. How many times did the people thwart the will of God? OFTEN!

I'm curious if you don't see contradictory wills of God in scripture, instead of considering the notion that there are two (at least) entirely distinct uses of the term, "will of God" (and related terminology).

Remember we're talking about a plan decreed before Saul existed. So the single plan must have been that Saul would mess up, and God knew Saul would mess up, so there is absolutely no possibility that Saul would not mess up. It's not a contingency, in that case.

By the way, how did God know Saul would mess up?

Because God caused it. Yes, the plan was decreed before Saul existed.

Contingency is simpler than you make it. It is only fact, that if Saul had obeyed, he would not have been rejected. Simple. But he did not obey, and that, of his own will and choosing, according to God's decree that it would happen that way, and caused by God through simple logic of causation.

And God knew because God caused it to be.


Mark Quayle said:
I constantly find it amazing that people think we are the ones to derail God's almighty, omniscient plans. Not even Satan can do that.

You find it amazing because you insert it into the description. Satan can't do it in your view because Satan's actions are completely controlled by God (He's sovereign, right?), so God fits in the camp of a divided kingdom, according to Jesus.
Matthew 12:25 KJV — And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

You will have to explain this better, or more simply, for a simple mind like mine to understand what you are trying to say here.

But can you show, besides this supposed denial of my notions by Scripture, how what I said is illogical?

The phrase "contingency plan" requires the possibility of the other. From Definitions from Oxford Languages:
a plan designed to take a possible future event or circumstance into account.

If it was impossible for Saul to do well and remain the king and pass it on to his children, then God is disingenuous to throw it in Saul's face as if he somehow had a way to keep the kingdom. That makes God a liar.

This is your problem, that you change the meaning of words (contingency, sovereignty, etc.) to suit you. It makes a conversation nigh impossible.

Notice how you move the goalposts? Nobody said "contingency plan" until now. We aren't talking about 'contingency plans'. There is only one plan, and it is contingent on causes and conditions, all of which will also come to pass, themselves being caused. The other supposed possibilities will not happen. In fact, it can be shown that they could not have happened, since the causes and conditions upon which they would have been contingent, also did not all happen.

Coincidence? Chance? —that I would say the same about your use of those words, and several others? I think not. God caused that too.

Instead of them murdering him, yes. God is able to save us from harm. Did God want him enslaved? Only as a means to an end, as a way to use for good what men meant for evil. In other words, even though the brothers were trying to be rid of Joseph forever, God used those desires, protecting Joseph from death, to save the brothers from death.

So, if God wanted him enslaved "only as a means to an end", God wanted him enslaved. Furthermore, God ordained that it happened and caused it, INTENDING it, as Scripture says.


Mark Quayle said:
Just to make sure you aren't misrepresenting what I'm saying, I don't think God set out to sin.

No, you don't think so, but your doctrine says so (and says not so at the same time). God set out to cause humans to sin, in your view. In doing so God became responsible for their sin. That's authorship.

You are using vague terminology again. Responsible for? Define, "responsible", there. God, as you said, is not divided against himself, not to mention that it makes no sense to say that God rebels against himself. Causing that sin be, is not the same as sinning. He is not the author of sin.

Which is contradictory to the part where you say that God decrees sin. If your doctrine is self-contradictory, it's time to start questioning your doctrine.

Well, I'm glad to hear you see that "If your doctrine is self-contradictory, it's time to start questioning your doctrine.", at least. Maybe you can explain how libertarian free will is not a self-contradictory notion, or, if not, to start questioning your doctrine.

Not just planning, but planning on such a way that there is no way for the humans to avoid it. That's authorship.

No. Your point of view is that of self-determinism, that insists that God operates on our level. You keep ignoring that God is, logically, first cause, and the ONLY first cause.

I have already. But here's the deal: if I'm right, that your view has God as the author of sin, then it proves that Calvinism is heretical, don't you think? This is spot on for the OP. If you need to prove that Calvinism is not heretical, then you are remiss in not providing that protracted argument.

Well, no, because you haven't proven that my view has God as the author of sin. You have only asserted so, and that, off a false assumption, drawn on a self-deterministic worldview. Nor is Calvinism to be judged by my notions. I'm not a Calvinist, though I have much in common with them.

So God had to fix a problem He intentionally caused? And if He had not caused a sinful humanity, then He could have just created a righteous bride? It makes no sense. It's a kingdom divided: God had to cause all sin to defeat sin.

Imagine that our government wants to stop all murders. And to do that they force 1/3rd of the people murder 2/3rds of the citizens, and then murder stops. Was it worth it?

Huh??? No. The righteous Bride of Christ is righteous in Christ, not in and of herself. I am saying directly that She would not have been created at all, but for God's use of rebellion against himself, to make her one with him, not because she is worthy in and of herself, but because she is redeemed.

What an enormous worldview you have! —have to fix...? God doesn't "have to" do anything. God simply does.

As for the comments about the government —what in the world are you even talking about???

Which makes Him the author of sin. If everything that comes to pass is His will, then He decrees/desires sinfulness in humans--His plans--in every detail. You said it yourself.

I did not say he is the author of sin. But he did intend that there be sin, and that, in every detail. It did not happen by accident.

You propose a god who must fly by the seat of his very intelligent and powerful pants, in order to see his overall general intentions to sort of come to pass!

I agree the ending is His plan. I agree the beginning was His plan. The middle is the part we are arguing about--whether EVERYTHING in the middle is His plan, or whether the middle part is humans trying to ruin His plan, and Him overcoming human sinfulness to make sure His plan comes to fruition. If part of His plan is overcoming His own plan, it's a divided kingdom, which He tells us cannot endure.

You don't understand causation, if you think that the middle is something God did not intend.

See, here's the thing wrong with your intuitive understanding. It is drawn from a humanocentric view, assuming self-determinism is the default, and ignoring the plain, raw, obvious fact, that God is the default, and the first cause. By definition, there can be no other first cause, yet you, self-contradicting, want to claim we are little limited first causes, and that, by his ordaining that it be so!

Our wills, and even whatever there is about us that can be called free, is still not free of prior causes. Get used to the chains of causation. And please, don't distort that to say what I did not say, nor mean. Everything but God, is caused.


Mark Quayle said:
The logic is faulty also because it is self-contradictory. God causes a creature to cause something God did not intend? Huh?

Agreed. That's why your view makes God the intentional author of sin.

First you say, "agreed", then you call it something heretical. But you are only asserting, assuming what you consider intuitive is reliable fact. It is not, nor have you begun to prove it.

I'm asking you if there's anything left that can in any way be considered His image. If there's nothing, then your view is unbiblical on its face (which makes it heretical).

I'm saying that we are silly to think we know everything about ourselves that can possibly be what God meant by "in the image of God".

How can cause by an agent be chance? If I set a pair of dice on the table showing 5 and 2, would you call it chance?

What? Of course I would not call it chance. There is no such actual thing as chance. It is only our word, a shortcut for, "I don't know [the causes]." It is my very point, that cause by an agent is a result of a long chain of causation, none of it by chance.

I am saying that supposed "chance" or supposed "state of being a 'secondary' first cause" —both logically self-contradictory, not to mention necessarily implicative of heresy— are the only explanations I have heard proffered for this libertarian freewill people invoke.

Here's what you are missing. If God makes a man who can choose good (what God wants) or evil (what God hates), and allows the man to decide without decreeing the decision, then God remains righteous, man retains responsibility for his own sin. Why is this idea so offensive to you?

Among many other reasons, because it invokes "chance". You have no explanation for this decision, how it even can happen, if God does not cause it by mere action of creation, the beginning of the chains of cause-and-effect. It's bad enough that considering chance to have causal ability is illogical, but the necessary implication, that God is not, after all omnipotent, is heresy. But then the alternative presented by "freewillers", that man is a 'small' first cause, and independent of God (said as if that was the definition of being made in the image of God), possessing of 'limited autonomy' (as if that combination of words makes any sense —autonomy is, or it is not —there are no degrees, except in sloughed logic), plainly implies that God is not, after all, first cause, since there can be only one, and so, not omnipotent. Thus, also, heresy.

Oh, and: The notion that God cannot cause what he hates, and leave creatures responsible for doing what he hates, is also, well, let me be nice —very badly mistaken. God owns us. We are not "fellow moral creatures like him". And again, logic: All fact, logically, descends from first cause. You can't escape that.

Who said freewill is uncaused? My question is, if freewill is caused by God, and every resulting act of freewill is caused byGod, where's the "free", and where's the "will"? Only God has it, and then you're saying that God freely willed sin (known as "authorship").

Your logic is still faulty here: It is mere assumption, and that from a self-deterministic point of view, that claims that if God is first cause, then what logically descends from first cause has no will. And no, God freely willing that there be sin, does not make him therefore the author of sin.

But you might want to remember, that through redemption is the ONLY way that we can come to know God. You can't demonstrate to me that God did not intend, and indeed do what it took, to cause that there be rebellion against himself —i.e. sin.

It seems you are in need of a good course in hamartiology. Explain how, by definition, God causing the very situations that it took for making mankind to universally be rebellious against him, is equal to saying God is rebelling against himself?

This is heretical, according to reformers, even, at least those who agree with the Westminster Confession.

And I too, agree with the WCF, but it doesn't say that 'God causing all things', is heretical. Quite to the contrary, from Chapter 3 (God's Decree),

I. "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;..."​

 

[John Mullally]

Because God caused it. Yes, the plan was decreed before Saul existed.

And God knew because God caused it to be.

Among many other reasons, because it invokes "chance". You have no explanation for this decision, how it even can happen, if God does not cause it by mere action of creation, the beginning of the chains of cause-and-effect. It's bad enough that considering chance to have causal ability is illogical, but the necessary implication, that God is not, after all omnipotent, is heresy. But then the alternative presented by "freewillers", that man is a 'small' first cause, and independent of God (said as if that was the definition of being made in the image of God), possessing of 'limited autonomy' (as if that combination of words makes any sense —autonomy is, or it is not —there are no degrees, except in sloughed logic), plainly implies that God is not, after all, first cause, since there can be only one, and so, not omnipotent. Thus, also, heresy.

What has God decreed? Does God decree many things, or has God decreed absolutely everything that comes to pass, as per Calvinism? The belief that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass is what is termed, “exhaustive divine determinism.”

Westminster Confession of Faith: “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.

Calvinists believe that if God has permitted someone to do a certain thing, then it’s the same as if He had decreed it, because He would have to have consciously chosen to allow it, versus not allowing other things, and therefore divine permission is the same as divine determinism. Therefore, God allows only what He has determined to allow. Shifting to non-Calvinism: Just because God allows something, doesn’t necessarily mean that He likes what He has allowed. He might hate it! But, He might love the fact that we are free to make our own choices, and what that might mean for His own kingdom. When people freely choose God over the world, then God inherits a kingdom of people who chose to love Him and chose to want to be with Him. Choices are important to God. The angels made choices. Adam and Eve made their choice in the Garden of Eden. As their offspring, we too make our own choices. The Christian Church consists of those who have made their own choice to ultimately reject the world, and to instead seek to be with God for all eternity. God doesn’t decree our choices but only that we would be free to make them.

Just because God plans things, doesn’t necessarily mean He causes the evil of others that He uses in His plans. At Job 2:3, God says, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.” If deterministic Calvinism was true, then God would be wrong to blame the devil. And if the devil knew anything about the deterministic Calvinism, then the devil could accuse God of manipulating him to accuse poor Job! If Calvinism was true, the only evildoer in the cosmos would be God, and everyone else would be innocent pawns. But if there is free-will, then people make their own choices and God simply uses their choices to redeem good from their evil (as we see in Genesis 50:20). Meanwhile, in deterministic Calvinism, God causes all the evil that He redeems for good.

 

[zoidar]

Thanks for the positive comment.

Can you tell me why you think it's necessary?

I don't think it is necessary per se, but if I question God's all knowing, then might there be a gap where you can trick God? Like my dad, who thinks God doesn't know all our thoughts.

Here's where I went with that question.
First, I considered whether God can look into the future to see what happens. That means the future is settled by someone besides God, and it isn't you or me that decide our actions (like what cereal you will eat tomorrow), because those decisions were made before you or I were created. That means there is somebody that knows more than God, which makes him more powerful than God. That drives me to the Calvinistic view of God, where He is the one that determines everything about the future, including what I have for breakfast tomorrow. But if He determines everthing, then He determines what sins I will commit, when I will commit them, and whether I "repent" of them. I'm not really involved, because all of this is determined before I'm even created.
If I'm not involved in deciding which sins I commit, and when, then how can I be responsible for any of them, much less be sentenced to die for them. We would all recognize such a judge as unfair to the extreme.

I do agree about your statements on the Calvinistic view of God, however I don't think God knows what we will choose from looking into the future, but by being all knowing. God just knows. That's what I think it means to be God. God also knows all the infinity of "what ifs", what would happen if we by free will were to choose differently.

Nor does the bible say God knows everything about you from before the world was created.

So why do we hold to the idea? Comfort, maybe? Tradition, perhaps? The biggest reason is that we have this idea of God's omniscience that supersedes scripture.

I think that is the historical view the first hundred years of the church. Have you looked into the matter? As I became a Christian I never questioned that. Sure it is a comfort God knows everything. And sure it's part of my tradition.

If God knows something about the future, then that means it's because it is
1. Something He intends to accomplish
2. Something already thought about by an existing creature (including angels and Satan), or
3. Something that derives from 1 and/or 2 or something done in the past by God or another existing creature (like the path of planets and comets, or the result of Adam eating the fruit)

We can tell this by several scriptures that explain how God knows things about us. He searches our hearts, he has "eyes" that rove over the whole earth, or He tests us, like He did Abraham.

Plus, there are times when God changed what was going to happen after He told someone what it was that would happen. Like Hezekiah's death date, or Nineveh's destruction date. He can't do that if the times are decided long before, because then His statements--the ones He knows are incorrect--are lies.

I think we need to separate how God deals with us in the present moment and how God knows everthing, also our future choices. God knowing I will say "no" doesn't stop Him from asking, because of that reason. He doesn't deal with us from his all knowing, or it would be pointless to ask of a service He knows we will decline. That is how He holds us fully responsible. God knowing I will say no, doesn't change the fact I have libertarian free will. If I were to choose diferently, God would know that too. I think the reason you reject this view is because you place God on the time-scale, where God is outside of time. To me there is no inconsitency between God's all knowing and our libertarian free will.

To put this in another way. God didn't really exist before His creation, nor did He not exist before His creation, because there was no time, no before. More correct would be to say God existed beyond His creation. God is both in the moment and in the everlasting. I know this is ungraspable, but so I find many things about God, like the truth about the Trinity.

Please let me know if some of that doesn't make sense.

 

[Derf]

I don't think it is necessary per se, but if I question God's all knowing, then might there be a gap where you can trick God?

Why would one want to? Wouldn't it lead to something, eventually, that would be open rebellion?

Like my dad, who thinks God doesn't know all our thoughts.

And so he thinks he can think naughty thoughts and God won't know, so he doesn't have to repent of them?
Matthew 5:28 KJV — But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I do agree about your statements on the Calvinistic view of God, however I don't think God knows what we will choose from looking into the future, but by being all knowing. God just knows. That's what I think it means to be God.

Shouldn't we let God describe Himself in the way He thinks best? Can you find it in His word?

God also knows all the infinity of "what ifs", what would happen if we by free will were to choose differently.

I think that is the historical view the first hundred years of the church. Have you looked into the matter? As I became a Christian I never questioned that. Sure it is a comfort God knows everything. And sure it's part of my tradition.

Why is it a comfort? My pastor, with whom I disagree in this area, is constantly explaining to us how wonderful it is that God knew each of us by name before He created the world. I don't see why that is more wonderful than His loving us just because we exist now.

I think we need to separate how God deals with us in the present moment and how God knows everthing, also our future choices. God knowing I will say "no" doesn't stop Him from asking, because of that reason.

Doesn't it? Doesn't He eventually stop trying to draw the sinner in and let him suffer his demise? Or will no one be thrown into hell?

He doesn't deal with us from his all knowing, or it would be pointless to ask of a service He knows we will decline. That is how He holds us fully responsible. God knowing I will say no, doesn't change the fact I have libertarian free will. If I were to choose diferently, God would know that too. I think the reason you reject this view is because you place God on the time-scale, where God is outside of time.

I don't have scriptural reason to accept the view, since I don't see it in scripture.

To me there is no inconsitency between God's all knowing and our libertarian free will.

There may be an inconsistency when it comes to God taking action for our well-being. Let's say you pray to God for protection. God hears your prayer and knows that tomorrow you will get hit by a bus. In love, He makes you trip 2 seconds before the bus rolls by, so you were no longer in its path. Now, did He know you would get hit, or not, since it didn't actually happen? Was His knowledge faulty? Even God has a hard time acting freely in a settled future. He would have to have set everything up exactly how it plays out before He created the world, and then, well, you have Calvinism, which has God causing you to sin--because we don't think God is smart enough to deal with our free choices as they come.

To put this in another way. God didn't really exist before His creation, nor did He not exist before His creation, because there was no time, no before. More correct would be to say God existed beyond His creation. God is both in the moment and in the everlasting. I know this is ungraspable, but so I find many things about God, like the truth about the Trinity.

But at least the trinity is described in scripture. "Outside of time", where God can go back in time and correct something, isn't...nor is it needed, except to preserve a false understanding of God's omnipotence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What has God decreed? Does God decree many things, or has God decreed absolutely everything that comes to pass, as per Calvinism? The belief that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass is what is termed, “exhaustive divine determinism.”

Westminster Confession of Faith: “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.

Calvinists believe that if God has permitted someone to do a certain thing, then it’s the same as if He had decreed it, because He would have to have consciously chosen to allow it, versus not allowing other things, and therefore divine permission is the same as divine determinism. Therefore, God allows only what He has determined to allow. Shifting to non-Calvinism: Just because God allows something, doesn’t necessarily mean that He likes what He has allowed. He might hate it! But, He might love the fact that we are free to make our own choices, and what that might mean for His own kingdom. When people freely choose God over the world, then God inherits a kingdom of people who chose to love Him and chose to want to be with Him. Choices are important to God. The angels made choices. Adam and Eve made their choice in the Garden of Eden. As their offspring, we too make our own choices. The Christian Church consists of those who have made their own choice to ultimately reject the world, and to instead seek to be with God for all eternity. God doesn’t decree our choices but only that we would be free to make them.

Just because God plans things, doesn’t necessarily mean He causes the evil of others that He uses in His plans. At Job 2:3, God says, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.” If deterministic Calvinism was true, then God would be wrong to blame the devil. And if the devil knew anything about the deterministic Calvinism, then the devil could accuse God of manipulating him to accuse poor Job! If Calvinism was true, the only evildoer in the cosmos would be God, and everyone else would be innocent pawns. But if there is free-will, then people make their own choices and God simply uses their choices to redeem good from their evil (as we see in Genesis 50:20). Meanwhile, in deterministic Calvinism, God causes all the evil that He redeems for good.

You keep pretending that God allowing means God not intending. Once again: If God knew, yet he began what caused it anyway, he caused it, and that, intentionally.

You keep pretending that man choosing means that God did not choose. They are logically not mutually exclusive. It doesn't even rule out the Devil causing and the parents causing nor other people causing. You just can't abide the notion that a person's choices are caused.

You keep pretending, without any evidence, that a whole realm of things were possible, that nevertheless didn't happen. If they didn't happen, you have no way to know they were possible. The evidence demonstrates that they were NOT possible. They NEVER happen.

 

[FenderTL5]

It doesn't even rule out the Devil causing and the parents causing nor other people causing. You just can't abide the notion that a person's choices are caused..

God can cause, the devil can cause, parents can cause, other people can cause but no one is responsible for their own actions. Got it.

 

[John Mullally]

You keep pretending that God allowing means God not intending. Once again: If God knew, yet he began what caused it anyway, he caused it, and that, intentionally.

You keep pretending that man choosing means that God did not choose. They are logically not mutually exclusive. It doesn't even rule out the Devil causing and the parents causing nor other people causing. You just can't abide the notion that a person's choices are caused.

You keep pretending, without any evidence, that a whole realm of things were possible, that nevertheless didn't happen. If they didn't happen, you have no way to know they were possible. The evidence demonstrates that they were NOT possible. They NEVER happen.

Calvinists assume that God's Sovereignty infers that He decrees everything that ever happened from long ago - thus making God the author of evil. God can work out His plan that obtains good from evil without planning the evil because He is Sovereign. Jesus did not come to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) that the Father planned the devil do (as Calvin states), because a kingdom divided against itself will not stand (Matthew 12:25).

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinists assume that God's Sovereignty infers that He decrees everything that ever happened from long ago - thus making God the author of evil. God can work out His plan that obtains good from evil without planning the evil because He is Sovereign. Jesus did not come to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) that the Father planned the devil do (as Calvin states), because a kingdom divided against itself will not stand (Matthew 12:25).

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

Explain precisely how, aside from assuming so and asserting that it is so, that God intentionally causing that one of his creatures, i.e. Lucifer, to rebel against him, makes God, and not Lucifer, the author of Lucifer's rebellion — even if God intended that it happen. God does not sin, in causing that sin be. He does not rebel against himself.

But to assume that sin was somehow an accident, that God did not intend, is contrary to Reason and Scripture. Is God not, after all, First Cause and Omnipotent?

 

[Derf]

Doesn't it? Doesn't He eventually stop trying to draw the sinner in and let him suffer his demise? Or will no one be thrown into hell?

@zoidar
If God knows someone will not repent, even through years of drawing him, why wouldn't God just stop with no drawing whatsoever? And how do you know He doesn't stop, maybe before he starts? Afterall, doesn't He know the heart of the unbeliever just as well as He knew the heart of Abraham?

The reason God tested Abraham was that He might have known his heart, but He didn't know whether Abraham would actually follow through. The reason He had to check out Sodom was to see if they really wouldn't repent. Man still can repent, even if God gives him over to a depraved mind, but it is increasingly unlikely. Nebuchadnezzar was given over to a depraved mind for a time, eating grass like an ox. But then God restored him to sanity, and he gave glory to God. I've heard, and seen some evidence in my own dealings with the dying, that many people have a moment of lucidity just prior to death, coming out of a coma or recognizing loved ones again. Maybe God gives every man a last chance.

 

[Derf]

Explain precisely how, aside from assuming so and asserting that it is so,

Is this your standard? You should follow it better.

 

[John Mullally]

Explain precisely how, aside from assuming so and asserting that it is so, that God intentionally causing that one of his creatures, i.e. Lucifer, to rebel against him, makes God, and not Lucifer, the author of Lucifer's rebellion — even if God intended that it happen.

Why do you assume God caused Satan or anyone else to sin? James 1:13 says that "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone". But it is true that God tests us — that is, He allows us to get into situations where we must make a choice between right and wrong. But if God does not tempt us why when we are tested, would He decree we fail?

God does not sin, in causing that sin be. He does not rebel against himself.

That's not the way I see it. God does not plan for any to sin and does look favorably on anyone causing another to sin.

Jeremiah 32:35 They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.​

But to assume that sin was somehow an accident, that God did not intend, is contrary to Reason and Scripture. Is God not, after all, First Cause and Omnipotent?

You assume that God sets people up to sin by using circumstances (i.e. First Cause) to cause sin.

In Genesis 4:6-8, God acts persuasively towards Cain, which shows the independence of Cain. He was his own person, though unfortunately acting contrary to the way in which God felt that he should. The fact that God reasoned with Cain, in that he must “master” the sin that was crouching at this door, shows that God believed that Cain could exercise his autonomous, self determination in a positive manner. He should be able to control the murderous motives that he felt inside. The fact that God warned Cain what would happen if he failed to control himself shows that God believed that Cain possessed the power of contrary choice, that is, Cain did not have to murder Able, even though that is exactly what he eventually did.

Genesis 4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” 8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.​

Is this your standard? You should follow it better

That got a chuckle out of me. At least I am trying to reason from scripture. Imagine that on a Theology forum.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is this your standard? You should follow it better.

Non-answer

 

[Derf]

Non-answer

Yes, I know. I'm starting to expect it of you.

 

[John Mullally]

Explain precisely how, aside from assuming so and asserting that it is so, that God intentionally causing that one of his creatures, i.e. Lucifer, to rebel against him, makes God, and not Lucifer, the author of Lucifer's rebellion — even if God intended that it happen. God does not sin, in causing that sin be. He does not rebel against himself.

I believe I included answers to those questions in Posts 908, 913, and 917.

But to assume that sin was somehow an accident, that God did not intend, is contrary to Reason and Scripture. Is God not, after all, First Cause and Omnipotent?

What scripture says that God intended Satan's rebellion or intended man to fall? The fact that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world indicates He knew it. But knowing is not the same as intending, planning, or decreeing us to sin.

This teaching of first cause is not from scripture, but not surprisingly it is from Calvin.

John Calvin: “Certain shameless and illiberal people charge us with calumny by maintaining that God is made the author of sin, if His will is made first cause of all that happens. For what man wickedly perpetrates, incited by ambition or avarice or lust or some other depraved motive, since God does it by his hand with a righteous though perhaps hidden purpose—this cannot be equated with the term sin.”​