Molinism

[YouAreAwesome]

Thanks for replying.

Yes, we had a state of perfection, but perhaps we didn't realize and therefore value this state of perfection.

It seems to me you are arguing that certain goods (i.e. valuing perfection) can only be obtained by performing an evil action. But then if this is true it would mean God has committed an evil action. But if God hasn't committed an evil action, and is perfect, then why would He not make us like Him immediately? The answer "because we need to value our perfection" seems contradictory (as I've just shown).

part of me believes that "original sin" is something that affects us just by being born, but that our being born confers a state of innocence which is lost through self-awareness -- i.e., the "Fall" story is a metaphor for maturity and the fall from grace into sin each and every person experiences simply by being born and growing into a child.

Ah ok, I see your position clearer now. I like your explanation of the creation story, it makes sense. However, the point I see as significant is the inclusion of evil at all within each framework: Molinism and Open Theism. Now within your view, if it's true the first humans were born in sin, why? What caused the sin? And who/what is responsible? On the other thread I was attacked for questioning God's character, but this is not where my heart intends to question, my intention is to defend His character while evaluating the origin of evil. The view you present seems to place responsibility for evil on God for the greater purpose of making humans a better kind of agent. Open Theism, as I understand it (I have a pretty shallow understanding as I still need to read more on it), says there was no definitive evil required for our ultimate existence. Evil was a mistake, a bad decision, a bad choice. It wasn't intended, it wasn't planned, it wasn't preordained. But in the case evil did happen, Jesus was slain since the foundation of the world, He was purposed to die for our sin and bring us back to the Father.

This, again, is why I think spoiled kids are spoiled: they've had stuff given to them since birth, and with these kids you can't simply teach (i.e. pass down cognitions) value.

I disagree. There are spoiled poor kids and rich kids that value life and their possessions; and vice versa.

God being epistemically infinite means he knows all things

Maybe I'm going to far here, but how does God know all things if He hasn't caused any evil? He does not know the feeling of guilt for example. He doesn't know the feeling of fear. In the same way, He will not have experienced the opposite feelings that you are arguing are the purpose of the evils themselves.

I personally think attempting to assign a purpose for evil is different to assigning a purpose to evil; i.e. evil was purposeless and a terrible thing, but God still uses it for His glory. Trying to place a reason on God for evil maligns His character, but His character is retained when we realise He is simply using a problem for a greater benefit.

 

[Received]

Thanks for replying.



It seems to me you are arguing that certain goods (i.e. valuing perfection) can only be obtained by performing an evil action. But then if this is true it would mean God has committed an evil action. But if God hasn't committed an evil action, and is perfect, then why would He not make us like Him immediately? The answer "because we need to value our perfection" seems contradictory (as I've just shown).

Ah ok, I see your position clearer now. I like your explanation of the creation story, it makes sense. However, the point I see as significant is the inclusion of evil at all within each framework: Molinism and Open Theism. Now within your view, if it's true the first humans were born in sin, why? What caused the sin? And who/what is responsible? On the other thread I was attacked for questioning God's character, but this is not where my heart intends to question, my intention is to defend His character while evaluating the origin of evil. The view you present seems to place responsibility for evil on God for the greater purpose of making humans a better kind of agent. Open Theism, as I understand it (I have a pretty shallow understanding as I still need to read more on it), says there was no definitive evil required for our ultimate existence. Evil was a mistake, a bad decision, a bad choice. It wasn't intended, it wasn't planned, it wasn't preordained. But in the case evil did happen, Jesus was slain since the foundation of the world, He was purposed to die for our sin and bring us back to the Father.

Not so much attaining a good as valuing it more fully. Yeah, that's arguably a good. I don't agree that this means God has committed an evil action; I don't think creating an evil action (or doing one) is the same as creating human beings whose necessary (or voluntary, through choice) nature is such that it involves a state of evil that follows innocence and precedes salvation.

Just to be clear, I'm presenting two contradictory pictures of original sin: one relating to a literal Adam and Eve reading, where sin entered the world through two people and spread to others by their being born (in which case the loss of innocence is voluntary for A/E and involuntary for those born, i.e., everyone); the other that the Adam and Eve story (it's noteworthy that fundamentalism in the early 20th century was the first to interpret these first few chapters of Genesis literally) is an allegory for the spiritual development a person goes through, starting with innocence then (perhaps psychologically through self-consciousness) loss of innocence and sin, then the option of salvation. If we take the allegory route (which I'm more partial to), then I don't know if it's really "voluntary" for people to progress in this spiritual direction, given that I don't know anyone who hasn't sinned, and that the Bible is pretty clear (e.g., Romans 2) that all have sinned, are depraved, etc.

So who is responsible in this case? If we follow the allegory interpretation, we pretty much have to say that God is responsible for sin entering the world, but only indirectly through creating creatures who started as innocent and later sinned and continue sinning voluntarily. It gets even more complicated: sin doesn't have a chance to be what it is (so to speak) until there's consciousness of the law, otherwise we have spiritual death. Spiritual death isn't evil (in the sense of intended badness for its own sake), and it isn't technically a state of sin so much as a result of sin, i.e., "the wages of sin are death". So putting all this together, it definitely mitigates the idea that God created evil, because maybe in a technical sense at least he didn't; we're all stillborns in spiritual death until we have the chance for repentance, which in rejecting allows us to sin, and in accepting grants us salvation (the very offering by God itself being grace).

What are your thoughts on this?

I disagree. There are spoiled poor kids and rich kids that value life and their possessions; and vice versa.

Right, so I should have clarified that there's nothing inherently spoiling of being rich, but that there's a pretty huge causal connection between being rich and being spoiled given the parenting styles (to reduce it to the main variable) that go with being rich in allowing rich kids to have stuff rather than disciplining them so that they value the goods they have.

Maybe I'm going to far here, but how does God know all things if He hasn't caused any evil? He does not know the feeling of guilt for example. He doesn't know the feeling of fear. In the same way, He will not have experienced the opposite feelings that you are arguing are the purpose of the evils themselves.

I personally think attempting to assign a purpose for evil is different to assigning a purpose to evil; i.e. evil was purposeless and a terrible thing, but God still uses it for His glory. Trying to place a reason on God for evil maligns His character, but His character is retained when we realise He is simply using a problem for a greater benefit.

Okay, good point: he knows all things that are logically entailed in his character. So he can't create a rock so big he can't lift it. He can't hate, given his nature is love. And so on.

And I don't think there is an inherent purpose to evil. Evil is by its very being a sort of malevolent aesthetic, where the individual values creating badness in another person for its own sake. Sin is technically different than evil, but is what ultimately allows a person to be evil, seeing how we all have varying degrees of evil in us. IMO. At the same time, we have Romans 8:28, God working all things together for good. So I think scripturally there's no ambiguity about God's teleologically using badness and evil for good for those who love him.

 

[EmSw]

This will be my one post to you here.

"Apparently" was the key word there as you noted yourself.

Why does He require prayer if He intends to heal anyway? Why does He allow all this suffering if he has predestined a perfect world forever in the end?

The end of what comes to past is what is predestined as well as those things in the process.

God not only predestined that Christ should reign forever and forever. God predestined that He should acheive that eternal state through suffering.

Adding 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 = three. 1 is not three. Think about it for a while.

No - I do not believe in open theism as does my previous interlocutor here on this thread.

God predestines not only the end but the means.

God did not find, (for instance), that His predestination of Christ's suffering was "faulty" even though He heard Christ's prayers and was not only moved but rewarded them eternally with something totally unlike what He had predestined to take place in the process.

Capisce?

You are not tracking straight.

God's predestination of Christ's suffering was a fact as was what transpired after that suffering.

The suffering was not permanent. You are right in that.

But His predestination of that suffering from before creation was permanent.

Yes - for a time.

No they were elect from before the foundation of the world.

God predestines not only the end but the means. We've been through this before.

That's just a silly thing to say.

I hope this post has been hopeful. I doubt in though. We've beeb through all this before.

You still keep saying silly and illogical things even after all this time.

Merry Christmas, Marvin!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Not so much attaining a good as valuing it more fully. Yeah, that's arguably a good. I don't agree that this means God has committed an evil action; I don't think creating an evil action (or doing one) is the same as creating human beings whose necessary (or voluntary, through choice) nature is such that it involves a state of evil that follows innocence and precedes salvation.

But you haven't addressed the inherent problem within this view. If certain goods such as valuing good (which is also a good as you pointed out) is an improvement to us (and it must be an improvement according to your view) then God has that good already, without doing evil. Contradiction.

God is responsible for sin entering the world, but only indirectly through creating creatures who started as innocent and later sinned

Yes, so this is the difference between your view and mine (at present). In my view, there is no evil until a free agent creates it, and by creating it, the agent causes a terrible problem that needs fixing. Life would have been better without it, but this is what we've got, and we trust that God will make good come from it. In your view, "God is responsible for sin entering the world" indirectly but for a purpose. Sin is then an integral part of forming man into the best possible human. However in my view, sin is terrible and unnecessary. In yours, it is necessary.

sin doesn't have a chance to be what it is (so to speak) until there's consciousness of the law

How do you explain Romans 2:15? I believe our conscience is a pretty good guide as what is right and wrong especially when all you know is God and His love. However, are you suggesting that the conscience evolved as well? I'd have to think about this... I've always thought of God giving us His Spirit, His image, as a divine act at some point in the evolution of creation. At the time He did this, humanity became living souls rather than just beasts.

I also don't believe we're born sinful. I think we're born with an inclination for good, not evil. But that might be a tangent for another thread (I refer to the book Precious in His sight by Harold Eberle).

Right, so I should have clarified that there's nothing inherently spoiling of being rich, but that there's a pretty huge causal connection between being rich and being spoiled given the parenting styles (to reduce it to the main variable) that go with being rich in allowing rich kids to have stuff rather than disciplining them so that they value the goods they have.

I'm sorry but I don't see a causal connection between being rich and children who are spoiled. Any child can be spoiled. Any child can be taught to appreciate what they have.

I think scripturally there's no ambiguity about God's teleologically using badness and evil for good for those who love him.

We agree here. God uses the evil for good. But I still believe that even better than this, is no evil at all, past, present or future.

 

[Received]

But you haven't addressed the inherent problem within this view. If certain goods such as valuing good (which is also a good as you pointed out) is an improvement to us (and it must be an improvement according to your view) then God has that good already, without doing evil. Contradiction.

I guess I don't see what God has to do with this. I'm speaking of evil and character regarding us. Unless you mean God's ability to have the good already without doing evil means it's contradictory to say that human beings can't have this knowledge as well. This is where I go back to finitude and infinitude.

Yes, so this is the difference between your view and mine (at present). In my view, there is no evil until a free agent creates it, and by creating it, the agent causes a terrible problem that needs fixing. Life would have been better without it, but this is what we've got, and we trust that God will make good come from it. In your view, "God is responsible for sin entering the world" indirectly but for a purpose. Sin is then an integral part of forming man into the best possible human. However in my view, sin is terrible and unnecessary. In yours, it is necessary.

I think we can soften things a bit (and I don't mean this just as a rhetorical device) by saying necessary in the sense of inevitable, and being inevitable God picks this up in advance and offers a way out (in this life or the next), and the way out is so good in fact that it actually makes things better for us (we value the good fully, etc.) than when we were in that state of (literal) childish innocence. I think your view has a pretty solid empirical critique, given that every single person who has ever existed has gone from a state of innocence to a state of sin. That's the reality. Does this mean God created evil? Again, I would say that's decontextualizing things; he created creatures he knew would inevitably fall given their finitude, and there's no other way to create finite creates who won't fall in this way.

How do you explain Romans 2:15? I believe our conscience is a pretty good guide as what is right and wrong especially when all you know is God and His love. However, are you suggesting that the conscience evolved as well? I'd have to think about this... I've always thought of God giving us His Spirit, His image, as a divine act at some point in the evolution of creation. At the time He did this, humanity became living souls rather than just beasts.

No, I think I agree with your interpretation. Conscience implies that there's a law "written in our hearts," which by definition has to be inferior to the law given by God (or else why even create a written law?). But with this interpretation we still have sin only becoming sin through conscience.

It's a strange idea, I know, but Kierkegaard described what he called a state of spiritlessness where people lose sight of the law written in their hearts, going along with Romans 1, which I think says that not all people by definition lose the way through rebellion in this sense, but that all people are capable of being "given over" to their base desires and also losing what basically comes down to their conscience (from "con science", "I know with [God]" what's lawful). The Christian existentialist novelist Walker Percy (Kierkegaardian to his core) had this eerie passage in his masterpiece, The Moviegoer:

Christians talk about the horror of sin, but they have overlooked something. They keep talking as if everyone were a great sinner, when the truth is that nowadays one is hardly up to it. There is very little sin in the depths of the malaise. The highest moment of a malaisian's life can be the moment when he manages to sin like a proper human (Look at us, Binx — my vagabond friends as good as cried out to me — we're sinning! We're succeeding! We're human after all!)
​

The state most people are in isn't really sin, because in order to sin you need consciousness of the law (externally or internally, which amounts to the same thing since the external becomes internalized). But what if you go the Romans 1 route of spiritlessness and so lose consciousness of the law written in your heart? Then you're in a state of spiritual death, awaiting grace to open up the possibility for faith, which also offers the possibility for sin (sin being the chance of faith turned down, so to speak).

(Thanks for being so patient with me on this thread and my detailed responses. I really love this subject we're discussing.)

I also don't believe we're born sinful. I think we're born with an inclination for good, not evil. But that might be a tangent for another thread (I refer to the book Precious in His sight by Harold Eberle).

Added to my wishlist; looks fascinating. I also don't believe that we're technically born sinful, but (following the Adam and Eve story as allegorical in depicting our psychological-spiritual state) that we're born good and innocent, and something surrounding the idea of self-consciousness at least correlates with our fall into sin, such that every single person who has ever lived ends up sinning, as the Bible clearly states: all have sin and fallen short of the law.

I'm sorry but I don't see a causal connection between being rich and children who are spoiled. Any child can be spoiled. Any child can be taught to appreciate what they have.

Any child can be spoiled, but the rich life carries more variables that are more likely to make a child spoiled. Namely being born into a rich life with all the goods you take for granted because you weren't parented in such a way to be disciplined and so learn to value these goods.

We agree here. God uses the evil for good. But I still believe that even better than this, is no evil at all, past, present or future.

To me this is comparing Hobbits to human saints. They're both perfect (or close enough to it) in a sense, but the latter has a deeper appreciation for the good given his fall from grace that the Hobbit doesn't have. I'd also emphasize my new twist by pointing to inevitability as described above.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

This is where I go back to finitude and infinitude.

Yes, and I don't find this reason compelling. How does infinitude relate to moral goods? It's just pushing the problem aside with the answer: "because God". Why must men experience evil to grow in good if God never has and is the perfect Good? Because God. It just doesn't make sense.

inevitable

I find it difficult to comprehend how omnibenevolence will inevitably produce evil, whether directly or indirectly, even if it is for a good purpose. The potential for evil, yes, but pure libertarian freedom is then completely responsible; only if however, He doesn't know evil will be chosen.

he created creatures he knew would inevitably fall given their finitude, and there's no other way to create finite creates who won't fall in this way.

Again, I fail to see how finitude accounts for an inevitable fall. If it does, then God intentionally created us weak, so that we would later become strong, and this doesn't fit Biblically or with His character as I understand.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Conscience implies that there's a law "written in our hearts," which by definition has to be inferior to the law given by God (or else why even create a written law?).

I see where you're coming from, however through the consistent abuse of the conscience I believe it can weaken to the point where we longer understand right and wrong. The law was given because of sin. The Israelites had been under the influence of the Egyptians and had lost sight of their heritage. Nevertheless it was not God's number one plan to ever give an external law (as seen in Exodus 19,20 and Deuteronomy 5 where you see God wanted a nation of priests and kings but the Israelite didn't want God speaking to them personally, but agreed to following a law instead). Heart to heart personal "grant covenant" relationship has always been God's desire.

Any child can be spoiled, but the rich life carries more variables that are more likely to make a child spoiled. Namely being born into a rich life with all the goods you take for granted because you weren't parented in such a way to be disciplined and so learn to value these goods.

I think you are missing the assumptions in your argument.
1. The amount of "stuff" a child has causes "spoiledness"
2. Not being parented in such a way to be disciplined to learn value

Point 1 is incorrect because a child is not spoiled by stuff, but by caregivers.
Point 2 is incorrect because you are assuming rich parents lack the skills required to teach their kids how to value. Rich or poor is inconsequential to parenting and instilling values.

To me this is comparing Hobbits to human saints.

This reminds me of Reinhard Bonnke, have you heard of him? He's lived his whole life (almost) for God's glory and seen amazing things happen. Some preachers glory in their sinful background, and the great change God has made. The old, I used to a drug dealer, or a murderer etc. doesn't add extra weight in my opinion. This thinking just encourages kids to get real sinful before they get saved so they have some good stories to tell in their sermons. No, better is to live the righteous life from day one. No sin, no problems. Just 100% Jesus. Based on our definitions, would you rather be the Hobbit? Or the human saint?

(Thanks for being so patient with me on this thread and my detailed responses. I really love this subject we're discussing.)

For sure! Same.

 

[ArmorBearer]

And I provided for you scripture which shows how He interacts and (apparently) changes His mind concerning His dealings with nations.

And I gave you scriptures that place the entire blame on the Israelites for the outcome, not God. The basis for God "changing His mind" in the scriptures you cited is what's being disputed. You propose that all of man's free will choices are actually orchestrated by God based on His already predestined will, that He either changes the hearts of men or "leaves them in their sin" according to an outcome He has already predetermined - but as demonstrated in the Exodus account, your theology ends up with an insoluble dilemma - a sworn promise by God to bring the 4th generation into the Promised Land simply can't be reconciled with your claim that He instead always intended to destroy them and that He was "100% responsible" for their rebellion and destruction.

I repeat what I said. "God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth." Note that I said "allowed" to happen. Everything that has happened anywhere outside of Himself is either because He has allowed it to happen, did it Himself directly or is a combination of His interaction with the creation (the Calvinist position concerning most of what we could talk about).

And no matter how many times you repeat these doctrines, it won't make them become true. The problem with making God "100% responsible" is your assertion that every single event is His predestined will - but as demonstrated here in the discussion about the Exodus, this can't be supported without doing violence to God's character. So, do you also believe it was God's predestined will for Adam to disobey and eat from the tree, just as you believe He wanted the Israelites to disobey His command to enter the Promised Land? Did God purposely orchestrate the fall of man also?

 

[Marvin Knox]

And I gave you scriptures that place the entire blame on the Israelites for the outcome, not God.

I agree that the entire blame is on the Israelites. I have never said otherwise.

You are conflating my use of word responsible for the word blame. The two words are not the same.

You propose that all of man's free will choices are actually orchestrated by God based on His already predestined will,

I have never said that. You are again conflating two different words. Now it is predestination and orchestration.

God may indeed "orchastrate" by creating or allow ing circumstances for a person which He knows beforehand will end in certain choices. That is based on what He has predesitned to occur.

But the choices themselves remain the choices of the person himself. A prime example would be the placing of Adam in the garden; creating a tree of knowledge of good and evil; giving a comand not to eat; and placing or allowing the serpent to be presentto tempt.

Surely we can agree that God "orchastrated" what then occured (I maintain that that orchastration was based on what He had "predestined" to occur - you apparently disagree).

But surely we can also agree that the "blame" for the fall of man is only to be placed ont the man (and the serpent I suppose) and not on God for orchestrating it.

Thess are simple and unequivical conclusion about what the scriptures teach. It cannot be denied without simply inventing another religion.

This is not Calvinism. This is simple reading, deduction, and systematic comparing of various scriptures.

that He either changes the hearts of men or "leaves them in their sin" according to an outcome He has already predetermined /QUOTE]
That is the clear teaching of the scripture. It is found in the words of the Lord and in the book of acts both stated and illustrated for us.

but as demonstrated in the Exodus account, your theology ends up with an insoluble dilemma - a sworn promise by God to bring the 4th generation into the Promised Land simply can't be reconciled with your claim that He instead always intended to destroy them

As I have shown many times - He did bring that generation in.

You need to look at such teachings as found in Romans concerning all who are of the flesh "Israel" not being true Israel _ but those who are of faith.

That 4th generation did enter in in the form of the "remnant" - namely Caleb and Joshua. Even Moses failed to enter in because of his lack of faith.

It has also been pointed out to you that this lesson doesn't apply to salvation necessarily but to faith and the Kingdom of God in general (Otherwise you are supposing that Moses was not "saved"). Surely you are not saying that are you?

and that He was "100% responsible" for their rebellion and destruction.


And no matter how many times you repeat these doctrines, it won't make them become true. The problem with making God "100% responsible" is your assertion that every single event is His predestined will - but as demonstrated here in the discussion about the Exodus, this can't be supported without doing violence to God's character. So, do you also believe it was God's predestined will for Adam to disobey and eat from the tree, just as you believe He wanted the Israelites to disobey His command to enter the Promised Land? Did God purposely orchestrate the fall of man also?

and that He was "100% responsible" for their rebellion and destruction.

He is 100% "responsible" for what He allowed to happen to them. He is not even 1% to "blame" however.

You are conflating the two words again.

You have been told many times now (by me and the Westminster Confession for instance) that predestination in no way eliminates either the making or the consequences of men.

For instance from the WCF ---- "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."

You can continue to argue that Reformed doctrine teaches otherwise. But it is extremely dishonest to do so now that you have been corrected so many times.

And no matter how many times you repeat these doctrines, it won't make them become true.

See the above statement by me. You are misrepresenting what the Reformed doctrine of predestination teaches and also refutes. You are not alone in this. It seems to be something done by most anti-Calvinists.

You have been corrected several times now. It becomes sin at a certain point IMO.

............So, do you also believe it was God's predestined will for Adam to disobey and eat from the tree, just as you believe He wanted the Israelites to disobey His command to enter the Promised Land? Did God purposely orchestrate the fall of man also?

God predestines all that takes place in His creation.

God's predestination of all that takes place in His creation in no way eliminates the responsibility of men and angels for their free choices.

Calvinism teaches no such thing.

If an off the wall example would help you out - If God predestines (and brings to past) a great earthquake in the the Tribulation period - it in no way does away with the laws of geology but rather establishes them.

Likewise the clear teaching of Reformed doctrine is that the choices made by men are according to natural laws visited on them by their creator and (being free agents created in the image of God) they will shoulder the blame for any wrong choices.

Calvinism does not teach coercive predestination but rather complete compatibility of the sovereignty of God the the free will of men.

You have been beating a straw man here just as many tend to do here in this section of the forum.

 

[EmSw]

God predestines all that takes place in His creation.

God's predestination of all that takes place in His creation in no way eliminates the responsibility of men and angels for their free choices.

Calvinism does not teach coercive predestination but rather complete compatibility of the sovereignty of God the the free will of men.

You have been beating a straw man here just as many tend to do here in this section of the forum.

Here's the problem with this teaching. If I choose something other than what God predestines, then the Reformed will shout and protest at the top of their lungs. If I can, this makes predestination useless and a Reformed flying pig.

If I can't choose something other than what God predestines, then I have no free will, thus predestination and free will are not compatible.

The question becomes, can a man choose something other than what God predestined?

 

[ArmorBearer]

I agree that the entire blame is on the Israelites. I have never said otherwise. You are conflating my use of word responsible for the word blame. The two words are not the same.

They are indeed the same according to any standard dictionary. Here's the definition of 'blame' according to the current Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of blame
-- blamed, blaming (transitive verb)
1. to find fault with: censure <praising or blaming a literary work>
2a. to hold responsible <they blame me for everything>
2b. to place responsibility for <he blames it on me>

-- to blame (noun):
1. at fault: responsible <he says he's not to blame for the accident>
Examples of blame in a sentence:
"Don't blame me. You are responsible for your own problems."
"My father always blames everything on me."

The terms are interchangeable, so when you say God is "100% responsible for what He allowed to happen to them but not even 1% to blame" it's a grammatical contradiction and as demonstrated here, it's also a theological contradiction - when 1Cor10 and Heb ch3&4 puts the blame entirely on the Israelites for their rebellion and destruction (which you acknowledged), it's saying they are totally responsible and directly refutes your claim that "God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth"

You are again conflating two different words. Now it is predestination and orchestration. God may indeed "orchastrate" by creating or allowing circumstances for a person which He knows beforehand will end in certain choices. That is based on what He has predesitned to occur. But the choices themselves remain the choices of the person himself. A prime example would be the placing of Adam in the garden; creating a tree of knowledge of good and evil; giving a comand not to eat; and placing or allowing the serpent to be present to tempt..

There's no confusion of terms on my part - orchestration is an intrinsic component of predestination which you've acknowledged yourself by saying God predestines events by "creating or allowing circumstances for a person which He knows beforehand will end in certain choices" - which fits Webster's definition of orchestrate:

-Definition of orchestrate (transitive verb):
To arrange or combine so as to achieve a desired or maximum effect
Examples of orchestrate in a sentence:
"She orchestrated the entire event."
"It's still unclear who was responsible for orchestrating the attack."
"A strike was orchestrated by union members."

The actual issue disputed here is your assertion that God "leaves them in their sin", gives them no ability to choose differently, but then holds men responsible for the outcome although He orchestrated the events including their own choices. It's impossible to maintain that God is "100% responsible for everything that occurs" and simultaneously place all the blame on those who had no option or ability to choose anything other than what He had predestined. You haven't been able to support this on any level and you never will.

Surely we can agree that God "orchastrated" what then occured (I maintain that that orchastration was based on what He had "predestined" to occur - you apparently disagree). But surely we can also agree that the "blame" for the fall of man is only to be placed on the man (and the serpent I suppose) and not on God for orchestrating it.

We could agree if Adam had the ability to choose not to disobey but there can be no agreement when you insist that God predestined Adam's sin by "creating or allowing circumstances for a person which He knows beforehand will end in certain choices". If God predestined and orchestrated all the events surrounding Adam's temptation and didn't give him the ability to choose differently, then Adam isn't responsible for what happened - God alone would instead be responsible for sin entering the world under those circumstances because Adam was set up for failure.

As I have shown many times - He did bring that generation in. You need to look at such teachings as found in Romans concerning all who are of the flesh "Israel" not being true Israel _ but those who are of faith.
That 4th generation did enter in in the form of the "remnant" - namely Caleb and Joshua.

1st, no matter how you spin it, two people are not a generation - in this case, at least half a million people short. The truth is, God fulfilled His promise to the entire generation but they simply chose not to receive His plan for themselves and as 1Cor10 and Heb ch3&4 state, they are solely responsible, not God. Only those holding unbiblical beliefs have a problem with Gen15 and must try to somehow force their doctrines into what's actually written - and in doing so they make God duplicitous by claiming:

(1)that God always intended for only 2 people to enter, not the entire generation as the promise is actually worded, that from the start He planned to have the 4th wander in the desert for 40 years until they all died and then take the 5th generation in - a hidden agenda never mentioned anywhere in the scriptures.

(2) that when He spoke to the 4th generation sympathizing with their plight and promising them release from bondage and a better life in the Promised Land, none of it was true - He actually planned to destroy them.

(3) that when they responded "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert" they were absolutely right - they were indeed about to die in the desert because that was God's actual predestined plan for them.

(4) then after forcing them from Egypt against their will, that when He commanded them to enter, He wanted them to disobey and He intentionally "left them in their sin" to insure they couldn't choose anything different

Once again: all this is refuted by the Old Testament accounts and in the New by 1Cor10 and Heb ch3&4 which places the entire responsibility on the Israelites for their rebellion and destruction - nowhere in the Old or New Testament does it ever say anything about God being even remotely involved in desiring, predestining, or orchestrating the Israelite's rebellion and destruction - but instead repeatedly states exactly the opposite. Any conclusions to the contrary come only from doctrines based on presuppositions and assumptions which are derived from unrelated and isolated bible verses which have been taken out of context and twisted beyond recognition.

Even Moses failed to enter in because of his lack of faith. It has also been pointed out to you that this lesson doesn't apply to salvation necessarily but to faith and the Kingdom of God in general (Otherwise you are supposing that Moses was not "saved"). Surely you are not saying that are you?

Trying to get doctrinal traction by comparing Moses to the 4th generation is mere desperation. Moses wasn't barred from the Promised Land for rebellion or lack of faith but because he was angry about the people's lack of faith and therefore struck the rock instead of speaking to it as God had told him (Num20:7-12). Moses wasn't hardened in rebellion as the 4th generation - his was a momentary lapse in which his actions, as God's representative to the people, misrepresented God as being angry with them, and it cost him his leadership role not his salvation. But the 4th generation rejected God's revealed will for themselves and remained in rebellion until they all died off - not entering the Promised Land itself isn't the issue, but why one didn't enter is the critical factor. The 4th generation's failure was due to rebellion and refusing to enter while Moses' was a moment of anger - hardened rebellion is a salvational issue, a fit of anger by someone who otherwise carried out God's purposes for 40 years isn't.
But since you brought the incident up - did God want Moses to misrepresent Him before the people and strike the rock instead of speaking to it? Did He predestine Moses to disobey Him and therefore "100% responsible" for the results? It's another challenge for you to reconcile the declared will of God vs an unspoken agenda that directly contradicts it - then placing all the blame on man although God had predestined it! You haven't yet resolved any such contradictions effectively or realistically.

You have been told many times now (by me and the Westminster Confession for instance) that predestination in no way eliminates either the making or the consequences of men.
For instance from the WCF ---- "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."

Appealing to the Westminster is more desperation, it's irrelevant - confessions can be inadequate, incomplete, or faulty and must always be secondary and subject to God's Word. Indeed, much better statements of faith are available that come from those who've recognized Westminster's deficiencies and revised it, such as the Cumberland Presbyterians who broke off from PCUSA 200 years ago and revised the Westminster (including eliminating the section you quoted). For example, in Section 2.00 under the title Human Freedom their version reads:

2.01 God, in creating persons, gives them the capacity and freedom to respond to divine grace in loving obedience. Therefore, whoever will may be saved.

Their Westminster is much more biblically sound than the version you cited which defines doctrines such as free will, predestination, and sovereignty so inaccurately. But the truth is, there's really no substitute for God's Word to avoid falling into the errors of men which tend to occur in such confessions due to ignorance and/or delusion.

 

[Marvin Knox]

They are indeed the same according to any standard dictionary.......................

I’m not going to trade long posts with you anymore.

I said that God is responsible for His actions and for what He allows to happen in His creation. It’s simply a fact that He works “ALL” things according to His will.

He doesn’t need to explain why He has allowed the things He does. He may. But He doesn’t have to. But if we believe what He says about Himself in the scriptures – He is absolutely good and everything He does or allows is therefore good. That includes evil acts.

We can parse words all you want but the bottom line is that He is and always has been both omniscient in His knowing what would happen if He did and or allowed certain other things to happen --- and ----- He was and is omnipresent in every aspect of what occurs with Him upholding all things by the Word of His power and with all things consisting in His Word.

When a person says that God is to “BLAME” – they are saying that God is the author and approver of evil. That is something that Calvinists have always made sure that they say is not the case - that is to say they agree with God in that matter.

But to say that God is “RESPONSIBLE” for everything that He allows is not the same as saying that He is to blame. If you can think of better words for it then go ahead.

But you and I and everyone else as well knows exactly what I am saying.

All human analogies fail when we are comparing God to His creation. But I could say as an example that when a person commits murder and is found guilty and pays the price demanded by the law (i.e. death) ------ the government is responsible for what the end result is but the murderer is has only himself to blame.

You can word it anyway you want to word it. But the fact is that God has presented Himself as totally in control of the evil that is done in His creation and not to “blame” for it. He is, however, presented as being totally responsible for allowing it.

No matter how you parse it – God did not put His creation into existence and now stands back and watches it do what it desires. It simply doesn’t work that way according to the scriptures.

The creation is not “open”. The creation is “enclosed” or consists in His Word which He has sent forth to accomplish whatever He desires.

That may be difficult for us to understand. But that is what He says. "Open" theology is not a scriptural concept.

I’ll leave it at that.

 

[EmSw]

I’m not going to trade long posts with you anymore.

I said that God is responsible for His actions and for what He allows to happen in His creation. It’s simply a fact that He works “ALL” things according to His will.

He doesn’t need to explain why He has allowed the things He does. He may. But He doesn’t have to. But if we believe what He says about Himself in the scriptures – He is absolutely good and everything He does or allows is therefore good. That includes evil acts.

We can parse words all you want but the bottom line is that He is and always has been both omniscient in His knowing what would happen if He did and or allowed certain other things to happen --- and ----- He was and is omnipresent in every aspect of what occurs with Him upholding all things by the Word of His power and with all things consisting in His Word.

When a person says that God is to “BLAME” – they are saying that God is the author and approver of evil. That is something that Calvinists have always made sure that they say is not the case - that is to say they agree with God in that matter.

But to say that God is “RESPONSIBLE” for everything that He allows is not the same as saying that He is to blame. If you can think of better words for it then go ahead.

But you and I and everyone else as well knows exactly what I am saying.

All human analogies fail when we are comparing God to His creation. But I could say as an example that when a person commits murder and is found guilty and pays the price demanded by the law (i.e. death) ------ the government is responsible for what the end result is but the murderer is has only himself to blame.

You can word it anyway you want to word it. But the fact is that God has presented Himself as totally in control of the evil that is done in His creation and not to “blame” for it. He is, however, presented as being totally responsible for allowing it.

No matter how you parse it – God did not put His creation into existence and now stands back and watches it do what it desires. It simply doesn’t work that way according to the scriptures.

The creation is not “open”. The creation is “enclosed” or consists in His Word which He has sent forth to accomplish whatever He desires.

That may be difficult for us to understand. But that is what He says. "Open" theology is not a scriptural concept.

I’ll leave it at that.

Marvin, give it up. Your reasoning makes no sense at all. Who was responsible for the death of millions of Jews in WW2? If you do not say God, your analogy falls flat on its face. Oh, you did say God was responsible for everything!!!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin, give it up. Your reasoning makes no sense at all. Who was responsible for the death of millions of Jews in WW2? If you do not say God, your analogy falls flat on its face. Oh, you did say God was responsible for everything!!!

.............is God really "100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth

This is for both of you guys.

God bears full responsibility for everything that He has allowed to happen in His creation including acts of evil.

The account of Job shows us the scene behind the acts of evil. God is fully willing and has shown us that He takes responsibility for every act of evil done to Job from theft to health matters to the death of his family and servants.

For that matter - God was responsible for every evil which was done to Joseph. God did it and Joseph's brothers did it as well. The difference is that God meant what He did for good and Joseph's brothers meant it for evil.

God was responsible for the word of the high priest when he uttered those evil words concerning it being good for one to die rather than the nation perish. God did good and prophesied through those words even as the high priest did evil.

The account of the evil done to Christ could be expounded on as well I suppose. But I doubt that it would do much good to you who are opposed to God's responsibility in all of the evil which He allows to take place in His creation. I'll just say that the people who killed Christ meant it for evil and the God who crushed His sinless Son meant it for good.

God was not the author of the evil itself. We know that from other scriptures. But His responsibility is clearly shown in these and other behind the scenes looks at blame vs. responsibility.

God's activity in His creation is not "open" in the sense that He simply watches and reacts to the evil. God is involved down to saying what evil can and cannot occur and when it will occur in history as well.

God in His omniscience knew what would happen in each circumstance which He orchestrated in Job's life and He was omnipresent in those earthly activities as well. That includes ever hair that perished from Job's son's head, the wool of his dead sheep, and every boil on his body from head to toes.

In Him we have our being and in His Word all things consist. His Word is accomplishing in this world all that He has been sent forth to accomplish. All things work together for good according to God's perfect will.

You guys need to not just pick and choose scriptures - and thus make up you own theology. You need to look at it in a fully integrated and systematic way, incorporating all concepts one with the another.

God doesn't just observe his creation (including the evil which occurs in His creation). He is immanently involved in orchestrating every aspect of it, including evil (and yet without sin Himself).

He is not the author of evil. But He is responsible for it's existence and it's use by Him.

I know that's hard for all of us to understand. But He's God and His ways are not our ways.

He may explain it all to us someday or not. I hope so. But in the mean time we need to just believe all that He has said to us in the scriptures and not pick and choose.

We need to believe that He is not only sovereignly involved in evil's calamities. He Himself orchestrates how and when they will appear - and yet without sin.

You can show faith in Him by believing both sides of the various paradoxes in the scriptures or you can show a lack of faith by coming up with a theology which believes only one side of them.

That's up to you guys to decide. As for me and my house - we will believe all of His Word and rest in it even when difficulties come in our understanding.

I will continue to believe and teach a systematic and fully integrated theology. Every really good and thorough theology work ever published is pretty much in line with my overall theology.

You guys do what you want to.

 

[EmSw]

This is for both of you guys.

God bears full responsibility for everything that He has allowed to happen in His creation including acts of evil.

The account of the evil done to Christ could be expounded on as well I suppose. But I doubt that it would do much good to you who are opposed to God's responsibility in all of the evil which He allows to take place in His creation. I'll just say that the people who killed Christ meant it for evil and the God who crushed His sinless Son meant it for good.

How could you stand before God and tell Him He is responsible for all the evil? Would you do that?

 

[Marvin Knox]

How could you stand before God and tell Him He is responsible for all the evil? Would you do that?

My position in this thread has always been that, as I have said, God is responsible for everything that He has allowed to happen in His creation.

It is His allowance that He is responsible for . I have never said that God is responsible directly for the evil itself. That is to say that God is the author of sin.

It is very clear where I have been coming from all along. Don't try to make me into someone who claims that God is the author of sin. I am not.

I quote the Belgic Confession since the WCF seem objectionable to so many. I concur completely with what it says as I also do the scriptures themselves.

Belgic, article 13:

THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD AND HIS GOVERNMENT OF ALL THINGS

We believe that the same good God, after He had created all things, did not forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment; nevertheless, God neither is the Author of nor can be charged with the sins which are committed. For His power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that He orders and executes His work in the most excellent and just manner, even then when devils and wicked men act unjustly. And as to what He does surpassing human understanding, * we will not curiously inquire into farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgments of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are pupils of Christ, to learn only those things which He has revealed to us in His Word, without transgressing these limits. This doctrine affords us unspeakable consolation, since we are taught thereby that nothing can befall us by chance, but by the direction of our most gracious and heavenly Father; who watches over us with a paternal care, keeping all creatures so under His power that not a hair of our head (for they are all numbered), nor a sparrow can fall to the ground without the will of our Father (Matt. 10: 29–30), in whom we do entirely trust; being persuaded that He so restrains the devil and all our enemies that without His will and permission they cannot hurt us. And therefore we reject that damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God regards nothing but leaves all things to chance.

This confession (and my beliefs) are incompatible with the "openness" doctrine being espoused here by "ArmorBearer".

Whether or not you espouse openness theology or not - you have not said. Perhaps you are not acquainted with it or haven't thought through it completely.

But I consider it (if not heresy) a denial of the absolute omniscience of God. I hold to the absolute omniscience of God - which demands logically and scripturally that certain other doctrines follow.

We have discussed a few of those doctrines in the past.

Have a nice New Year.

 

[ArmorBearer]

I’m not going to trade long posts with you anymore.

I said that God is responsible for His actions and for what He allows to happen in His creation. It’s simply a fact that He works “ALL” things according to His will.

He doesn’t need to explain why He has allowed the things He does. He may. But He doesn’t have to. But if we believe what He says about Himself in the scriptures – He is absolutely good and everything He does or allows is therefore good. That includes evil acts.

We can parse words all you want but the bottom line is that He is and always has been both omniscient in His knowing what would happen if He did and or allowed certain other things to happen --- and ----- He was and is omnipresent in every aspect of what occurs with Him upholding all things by the Word of His power and with all things consisting in His Word.

When a person says that God is to “BLAME” – they are saying that God is the author and approver of evil. That is something that Calvinists have always made sure that they say is not the case - that is to say they agree with God in that matter.

But to say that God is “RESPONSIBLE” for everything that He allows is not the same as saying that He is to blame. If you can think of better words for it then go ahead.

But you and I and everyone else as well knows exactly what I am saying.

All human analogies fail when we are comparing God to His creation. But I could say as an example that when a person commits murder and is found guilty and pays the price demanded by the law (i.e. death) ------ the government is responsible for what the end result is but the murderer is has only himself to blame.

You can word it anyway you want to word it. But the fact is that God has presented Himself as totally in control of the evil that is done in His creation and not to “blame” for it. He is, however, presented as being totally responsible for allowing it.

No matter how you parse it – God did not put His creation into existence and now stands back and watches it do what it desires. It simply doesn’t work that way according to the scriptures.

The creation is not “open”. The creation is “enclosed” or consists in His Word which He has sent forth to accomplish whatever He desires.

That may be difficult for us to understand. But that is what He says. "Open" theology is not a scriptural concept.

I’ll leave it at that.

1st, all the questions posed to you only required a Yes or No answer, any "long posts" resulted from you trying to compare Moses with the rebellious 4th generation, from your appeal to confessions, and from various challenges you launched against standard dictionary definitions - all in your endeavor to reconcile that 1)"God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth" but at the same time 2)"isn't the author and approver of evil" although at the same time 3)"He creates or allows circumstances for a person which He knows beforehand will end in certain choices" and 4)either "leaves them in their sin" or changes their hearts depending on the outcome He's predestined. These are contradictory doctrines that can't possibly be reconciled with each other or with the bible - if God is 100% responsible for all that happens then by definition He's also responsible for evil - especially if He predestines and orchestrates all the circumstances associated with it. And it's been shown here regarding the Exodus account that if these doctrines were actually true, it makes God duplicitous - saying one thing while intending to do exactly the opposite.

These contradictions come from your misconceptions about biblical free will and how God exercises His sovereignty. What scripture actually teaches regarding God's sovereignty concerning evil is that He has postponed final judgment upon it while in the meantime provides each person with a conscience to guide them away from it, has given His Law for the same purpose, and sends the Holy Spirit to convict each one of sin and call them to turn from it - those who choose to obey the Light He gives them will be saved and those who refuse will be destroyed - exactly as happened to the Israelites. God faithfully fufilled all He had promised to them, they chose not to receive it, thereby rejected a relationship with Him, and by doing so were destroyed and ultimately will face the Final Judgment when all evil is permanently removed from the earth. Using this view of the scriptures, it can be seen that although the 4th generation chose not to receive the blessings God originally intended for them, His will was still accomplished later by simply taking the 5th generation in to possess the Land - thus "all things worked together for good" and "His word did not return void, but accomplished His purposes" despite the fact that the 4th generation decided not to be part of it.

Attempting to maintain that God exercises 100% sovereign control over every decision is where you've crashed and burned - instead, He guides them into the truth desiring that they respond to it, allows them to make their own decision to obey or not, while only retaining His sovereign right to be the final Judge of those decisions. There's nothing mysterious or paradoxical about any of this but your doctrines have put you on an imaginary airplane going to a non-existent island - and as seen from this discussion, it will continue being a very frustrating experience unless you bail out.

And since you mentioned murder as an example, consider the 1st murder (Abel) - and if you reject my analysis above then continue using your own doctrines to answer this: Did God want Cain to offer a bad sacrifice, want him to reject His counsel to repent, never really intended to accept him back, and didn't actually want him to overcome sin as stated in Gen4:6-7 - did God want Cain to instead murder Abel and accordingly withheld the change of heart needed for him to obey and overcome sin?

 

[Si_monfaith]

What are your thoughts on Molinism?

Molinism is a soteriolgical system that attempts to reconcile free will with God's sovereignty.

One of its most notable features is the concept of Middle Knowledge. According to this concept, God knows what any individual would freely choose under certain circumstances, and therefore, He can foresee all outcomes, even in situations that don't exist since He chose not to create those realities.

It is named after the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to reform the Catholic Church, and agreed with the Church on some things and with the Reformers on other things.

Many of its modern day proponents are Protestants such as William Lane Craig.

God can never be seen as the author of sin or evil regardless of the truth that all human choices originate in Him. Why?

If man hadn't chosen the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden, man could not know that whatever God did was evil or sin.

It was not God's will for man to possess the knowledge of good and evil. Only God can help you to not think in terms of the knowledge of good and evil.